Autonomous Learning and Constructivist Leadership:

A Case Study in Learning Organizations

Submitted to Regent University

School of Leadership Studies

In partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Organizational Leadership

James G. Coe

March 2006

ii

iii

Abstract

This research sought to investigate the hindrances constructivist leaders, or

undergraduate professors, experience when considering transference of control for

learning events to autonomous learners. This phenomenological study focused on the

above phenomena experienced by constructivist leaders teaching in a small Christian

liberal arts university. A triangulation of data collection involved selected professor

interviews and their students’ interviews plus observations of professors’ classroom

instruction. Five steps recommended by Moustakas (1994) were utilized: first, an

epoche of a pilot study was written including personal experiences of the

phenomenon under investigation; second, an identification was made of significant

statements from interviews, incidents from class observations, and statements in

syllabi; third, significant statements, observations, and artifacts were grouped into

themes; fourth, a synthesizes was created into a description of the experiences of the

professors; and fifth, a composite description of the meanings and the essences of the

experience were given. The theoretical foundation of this study focused on

constructivism and constructivist leaders, autonomous learners, and behavioralism;

these variables cause faculty to consider giving or not giving autonomous learners

control for their learning; this impacts the facilitator of learning who often holds the

control for learning. Constructivist leadership principles mandate shared

responsibility with learners. A behavioralist action presents a hindrance to giving

control to autonomous learners, and it emphasizes the need to control for learning

outcomes and for the knowledge base. The hindrances found from the research data,

which are highlighted in the discussion chapter were the following problem areas:

iv

behaviorism teaching methodologies, information giving, ownership for learning,

hesitant autonomous learners, inactive listening, leaders’ self-importance, site of

learning, learning outcome assessment, preparation for facilitating autonomous

learners, lack of enthusiasm for learning, administrative policy, and little reflection

time.

v

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank and acknowledge the world renown Regent School of

Leadership Studies faculty: Dr. Paul Carr, Dr. Bruce Winston, Dr. Corne Bekker, Dr.

Michael Hartsfield, Dr. Mihai Bocarnea, Dr. Jacque King, Dr. Bramwell Osula, Dr.

Kathaleen Reid-Martinez, Dr. Karen Klenke, and Dr. Dail Fields, for challenging me

to not only seek education but also to own it. I am honored to know these faculty

members because of their selflessness and dedication to Christian higher education.

I would especially like to thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Paul Carr, for

facilitating my learning in such a way as to raise my learning to levels I never thought

possible. His “emerging doctors” motto and theme related with first year doctoral

students is true. Because of his mentoring, I now know first hand the fantastic

transformation that can occur in a learners’ life. I am grateful that Dr. Carr continues

to model creative life-long learning, to set a research agenda for autonomous learning,

to develop leadership principles from children’s’ classic stories, and to allow his

“dogs” to participate in the learning process. I am also thankful for the insights

afforded me by my exceptional doctoral committee comprised of Dr. Jacque King and

Dr. Robert Dyer.

My sincerest thanks go to my wife, Linda, for listening to my late night

doctoral thoughts amidst the pressure of daily discharging my duties as Associate

Dean of the Taylor University Business Division. She often read my drafts for hours

to see if they made any sense because of my gross dyslexia. I am grateful for her

constant devotion and faith during this doctoral journey. I am grateful to my two

grown children and to their mates for their constant encouragement.

vi

I am grateful to Taylor University faculty, administration, and students. The

business division faculty have prayed and worked with me when I could not give full

attention and time to administrative matters. I am honored to be counted as their

colleague. Each member is a model to me of Christian life-long learning. To Nancy

Gillespie, the business program assistant, I am especially grateful for her excellent

handling of daily business matters that allowed me a little more time to write. I

especially give thanks to the seven faculty colleagues who agreed to participate in this

research. My colleagues at Taylor University were unfailingly supportive. To Dr.

Steve Bedi, Provost, I offer my sincere thanks for supporting my efforts from the very

beginning to the end with lunch times devoted to listening to my doctoral program

excitement and perplexities with learning. I also thank Dr. Chris Bennett and Dr. Faye

Chechowich, Associate Vice-Presidents of Academic Affairs, for their patience and

care in working with me in the role of associate dean of the business division. I

appreciate their support of my doctoral efforts by administering the Taylor University

policy of doctoral tuition reimbursement, which made this doctoral journey possible. I

especially appreciate and give thanks for my students who over the years have taught

me much.

I thank my doctoral friend, Steve Irwin, a missionary located in Argentina. I

am honored to be his colleague. Steve Irwin inspires me to increase my love for God,

love for others, and love for learning. I enjoyed the many exchanges of ideas we

posted and his keen academic insights. I will most remember and give thanks for a

prayer time we enjoyed together at a doctoral residency when God manifested

Himself in our inner most being to strengthen both of us for His work.

vii

Finally, I want to thank the many wonderful teachers in my past that did not

teach me but facilitated my learning. They saw something in me beyond the grades

that inspired me to continue learning for the sheer joy of learning. Coming from a

family that did not appreciate or value book learning, my secret boyhood dream of

becoming the first doctor in the Coe family will at last come true and will no longer

be a secret.

viii

Table of Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................ iii

Acknowledgements....................................................................................................... v

Chapter 1 – Introduction ............................................................................................... 1

Research Problem .................................................................................................. 1

Research Questions................................................................................................ 4

Research Rationale ................................................................................................ 4

Theoretical Background to Variable Relationships............................................... 5

Constructivist Leader ........................................................................................ 6

Autonomous Learners....................................................................................... 9

Behavioralist ................................................................................................... 10

Definition of Terms ............................................................................................. 11

Hypotheses........................................................................................................... 12

Scope of the Study ............................................................................................... 13

Method of Inquiry................................................................................................ 14

Choice for Qualitative Inquiry and Rationale................................................. 14

Interviews........................................................................................................ 15

Observation..................................................................................................... 15

Document Review........................................................................................... 16

Analysis of Data .................................................................................................. 16

Limitations of the Study ...................................................................................... 17

Chapter 2 – Literature Review.................................................................................... 19

Constructivism..................................................................................................... 19

ix

Autonomous Learning ......................................................................................... 24

Desire .............................................................................................................. 25

Resourcefulness .............................................................................................. 25

Initiative .......................................................................................................... 26

Persistence....................................................................................................... 27

The Empirical Research.................................................................................. 28

Behavioralism...................................................................................................... 29

Summary.............................................................................................................. 31

Chapter 3 – Method .................................................................................................... 33

Description and Rationale of Methodology......................................................... 33

The Research Context.......................................................................................... 36

Identify the Place of the Study........................................................................ 36

Identify the Time of the Study and Permission .............................................. 38

Sampling Procedures ........................................................................................... 39

Selecting the Samples and Participants........................................................... 40

Defining the Units of Analysis ....................................................................... 41

Gathering Data..................................................................................................... 42

Collecting Data through Interviews ................................................................ 43

Analyzing Data .................................................................................................... 46

Maintaining Rigor, Credibility, and Quality........................................................ 48

Summary of the Method ...................................................................................... 49

Chapter 4 – Data ......................................................................................................... 51

Epoche Pilot Study on Constructivist Leadership in Course Development ........ 52

x

Interviews with Seven Professors Concerning Learning..................................... 57

Interview with Dr. Rick .................................................................................. 57

Interview with Dr. Sam................................................................................... 75

Interview with Dr. Jane................................................................................... 98

Interview with Dr. Amy................................................................................ 105

Interview with Dr. Ben ................................................................................. 123

Interview with Dr. Ron ................................................................................. 141

Interview with Dr. Bill.................................................................................. 162

Barriers to Autonomous Learning ..................................................................... 182

Desire ............................................................................................................ 182

Resourcefulness ............................................................................................ 184

Initiative ........................................................................................................ 186

Persistence..................................................................................................... 187

Teacher-Centered Ego Routines ........................................................................ 187

Textbook as Teacher.......................................................................................... 188

Teachers Give Little Respect to Autonomous Learners .................................... 189

Problems with Assessment ................................................................................ 189

Graduate School Influence upon Undergraduate Teachers ............................... 190

Behavioralist Routines of Teacher Control ....................................................... 191

Communication Style ........................................................................................ 192

Educational System of Pedagogy ...................................................................... 192

Constructivist Leaders’ Attributes and Actions................................................. 193

Desire ............................................................................................................ 193

xi

Resourcefulness ............................................................................................ 194

Initiative ........................................................................................................ 195

Persistence..................................................................................................... 196

Giving Respect................................................................................................... 196

Assessment for Learning by Autonomous Learners.......................................... 197

Discussion Groups and Presentations of Learners............................................. 198

Giving Information ............................................................................................ 198

Various Techniques to Promote Learner Ownership......................................... 199

Summary of Analyzed Data............................................................................... 200

Chapter 5 – Discussion ............................................................................................. 203

Constructivist Leaders and Behavioralism ........................................................ 206

Giving and Telling Information......................................................................... 208

Ownership for Learning..................................................................................... 209

Autonomous Learners Hesitant ......................................................................... 210

Participation in Position................................................................................ 211

Presentations ................................................................................................. 212

Discussion Groups ........................................................................................ 213

Utilizing Student Questions .......................................................................... 214

Talking Group............................................................................................... 215

Listening ............................................................................................................ 216

Leaders’ Self Importance................................................................................... 217

Site of Learning ................................................................................................. 218

Assessing Learning Outcomes........................................................................... 220

xii

Preparation for Facilitating Learning................................................................. 221

Enthusiasm for Learning.................................................................................... 222

Administrative Policy ........................................................................................ 223

Action Learning Experiences ............................................................................ 224

Reflection Time ................................................................................................. 225

Leadership in Learning Needs Balance ............................................................. 225

Suggestions for Further Research...................................................................... 229

References................................................................................................................. 232

Appendix A Interview Questions for Undergraduate Professors ............................. 243

Appendix B Classroom Observation Elements......................................................... 245

1

Chapter 1 – Introduction

This chapter presents an introduction to investigating hindrances to

constructivist leadership: the following order of the chapter presents the description

of the research problem, the research question, and the rationale for the study. It

includes the theoretical background of related theories that apply to the research

questions and how these relate to the study. The presentation of the variables and

their relationship to one another gives an understanding and expectation for collecting

relevant data during this research. Some terms are presented to clarify variables and

the theoretical background. In this chapter, the hypothesis given provides the focus

for this investigation. The scope of the investigation presents a context in which to

understand the research method proposed for this study. After reviewing the

methodology, it became necessary to review the analysis of data collected. Presented

near the end of the chapter are the limitations of this research.

This investigation consists of studying the hindrances that constructivist

leaders encounter when facilitating or planning a learning event involving

autonomous learners. Concerning learners, Senge (1990) believed that learner

demands upon leadership call for leaders who demonstrate teaching behaviors like

those of a designer, who believes that “people learn what they need to learn, not what

someone else thinks they need to learn” (p. 345).

Research Problem

Regarding the field study purposed, Moustakas (1994) suggested that the

researcher highlight an example of the phenomenon under study as a valuable first

step. For that purpose, consider the following example of a problem encountered by a

2

constructivist leader. The character of Mr. Keating, a constructivist leader, in Dead

Poets Society written by Kleinbaum (1989), experiences the disdain of colleagues and

the president of the private school because of his constructive unorthodox assignment

for the students. He asks the students to march in the outside courtyard while reciting

a poem to their own marching cadence for better understanding the tempo of poetry.

Throughout the story, Mr. Keating encourages students to be persistent, initiative,

desirous, and resourceful while learning literature and life’s lessons. Eventually Mr.

Keating receives a dismissal notice for allowing autonomous learners to display

unorthodox behavior in a conservative private school. At the end of the story, the

reader becomes aware that Mr. Keating as a constructivist leader has facilitated

learning at the price of his losing his position. This phenomenon of a leader

experiencing various barriers to transformational interaction with autonomous

learners can be observed in learning events today (H. Long, personal communication,

October 19, 2005; M. Weimer, personal communication, October 5, 2005). These

barriers could be dismissed or even applauded if the constructivist leaders’ results

showed no effect or no promise for real learning. Yet, Holley and Oliver (2000)

claimed that academe is moving from the traditional behavioralist principles and

techniques towards the constructivist principles and techniques because of the real

learning that occurs. Barriers exist for those leaders like Mr. Keating: the

administration of a learning organization does not always support constructivist

leadership and clings to traditional behavioralist principles.

Educational organizations may advertise that learners receive personalized

education, yet the administration in leading the organization does nothing to promote

3

or encourage the personalized education. For example, constructivist leaders may be

given over 50 in a class. Since constructivists believe in letting students take

responsibility for their own learning, the situation can become unwieldy when 50

students have a different opinion about what to study. Even if allowing and utilizing

independent learning contracts, many constructivist leaders may shrink from the time

needed to interact well with 50 different learners along with other educational duties

delegated to them by administrators. Administrators may infuse the organization with

their beliefs, which may counter constructivism with behavioralism.

Lester and Onore (1990) believed that the chief barrier to constructivist

principles comes from those who espouse the behavioralist philosophy that human

beings cannot construct knowledge. According to Gray (2002), educational leaders

need to change their paradigm of knowledge construction before they can change

their behavior to empower autonomous learners.

Another problem exists in learning organizations. Autonomous learners may

become frustrated or bored with learning events even in doctoral courses in which

they sit though a traditional behavioralist lecture designed for all learners. Some

leaders posit and persist in teaching information that is determined good for the

learner to know even if the learner does not believe it; however, Boyatzis (2002) said

that students learn what they want to learn. Non-autonomous learners can present

hindrances to a learning event by demanding utilization of behavioralist techniques

such as rote memorization in order to answer questions for an exam.

4

Research Questions

The primary research question investigated in this dissertation concerns the

following: What hindrances do constructivist leaders experience in undergraduate

institutions when facilitating learning for autonomous learners? Questions of a lesser

nature but germane to this study involve the support of constructivist behavior.

What does the institution do to promote or encourage constructivist leadership? What

do constructivist leaders need in order to believe that they are supported in their

endeavor to espouse constructivist principles and techniques? What do autonomous

learners desire from constructivist leaders which provides for learning and

transformation? To what extent does power and control exercised by a constructivist

leader affect learning methodologies in instruction?

Research Rationale

According to Sampson, Karagiannidis, Schenone, and Cardinali (2002), a

society’s transformation raises the demand for major reforms in education and

training which targets reducing barriers to knowledge. Bass (2000) highlighted the

imperative of studying leadership in educational settings since many of the theories of

leadership develop there.

Some learning situations may not be conducive to autonomous learning

(Senge, 1990). Regarding the hindrances that constructivist leaders experience, M.

Weimer (personal communication, October 5, 2005) stated, “I don't really know of

any empirical research on the topic. You’re working on an important topic.”

Autonomous learners are an important part of this study. Derrick, Carr, and

Ponton (2003) indicated that “the conditions of the workplace today are even more

5

driven by the need for employees to be autonomous” (p. 4). Since the increasing

demand for autonomous learners exists, the significance of this research lies not only

in understanding the attributes of constructivist leaders and facilitators who interact

with autonomous learners, but also in the long-term implications for education

cooperating with the business world to foster the development of autonomous

workers.

Merriam and Caffarella (1999) argued that research needs to answer: “Do the

issues of power and control affect introducing and sustaining the issues of self-

directed learning methodologies in instruction?” (p. 313). According to Derrick et al.

(2003), “Researchers have identified general characteristics of effective learners, but

have not established a clear understanding of the specific characteristics that facilitate

or obstruct learner autonomy” (p. 4). Research concerning power relationships in

teaching self-directed learners remains sparse and needed (Merriam & Caffarella).

According to Hansen and Stephens (2000), not much research has addressed

the real struggles faculty undergo behind classroom doors or the systemic factors that

undermine even the most well-intentioned instructors. Learner-centered instruction, it

turns out, has to overcome a number of obstacles that can hardly be resolved at the

classroom level. These problems are part of our culture and its inclination for

separating learning from growing at all levels of education.

Theoretical Background to Variable Relationships

For several decades transformational leadership behavior has been the focus

of leadership scholars. Rubin, Munz, and Bommer (2005) believed that interest in

transformational leadership behavior results from a foundation set by Bass’ (1998)

6

leadership theory. Bass’ leadership theory accounts for three main types of leaders:

laissez-faire, transactional, and transformational. While laissez-faire leaders abdicate

their leadership, the transactional leader uses various exchange actions with followers

that become rewards or corrective action; however, the transformational leader

engages with followers to motivate them beyond transactional agreements (Rubin et

al.). Transformational leadership provides a way to understand the similar approach

of the constructivist leader.

Constructivist Leader

The constructivist leader, the antithesis of the behavioralist, believes that

constructivist principles provide realistic ways to give autonomous learners control

over their learning (Lambert, 2002; Walker, 2002). This section also includes a

summary of a philosophical learning theory: Constructivism as advocated by

Brookfield (1990). This section provides a foundation for understanding the

principles of constructivism as they apply to leaders. This foundation also provides

for a better understanding of current empirical research and of the expected outcomes

during this research concerning the hindrances constructivist leaders experience when

transferring responsibility for learning to autonomous learners in undergraduate

learning events.

According to Walker (2002), a result of constructivist leadership can be

observed when learners create knowledge and beliefs within. Walker also posited that

constructivist leadership facilitates learners to give meaning to their experiences when

learning. Under the constructivist leadership, learners access their experiences

embedded with knowledge and beliefs, learners experience diverse and unique

7

learning based upon demographic variables, learners increase learning through social

activity, learners’ desire reflection and metacognition to construct knowledge,

learners assess their own learning, and learners expect varied and unpredictable

outcomes to their learning (Walker).

Holley and Oliver (2000) claimed that academe has taken a stand against

behavioralism, turning instead towards constructivist principles and techniques,

which support autonomous learners. For example, Candy (1991) argued, “The

development of personal autonomy is almost universally proclaimed as a goal of

education” (p. 119). Holley and Oliver found that “in more radical revisions of the

educational context, lecturers have adopted a subservient role, acting as a facilitator

of students’ independent learning, in marked contrast to their traditional roles as

director and assessor of learning” (p. 14). Candy claimed that constructivists

acknowledge that knowledge cannot be taught, but only learned, because knowledge

is constructed by the learner. Concerning the self-directed learner, Thanasoulas

(2000) argued that the constructivist perspectives of learning encourage and support

self-directed learning as a condition for learner autonomy. The constructivist leader

believes that real learning occurs with constructivist behaviors, since it supports and

calls for self-initiated learning. Rogers and Freiberg (1994) reaffirmed the point by

positing that self-initiated learning is the most enduring for the learner.

Projected research findings. The findings of this research focus on hindrances

experienced by constructivist leaders in shifting power for learning to autonomous

learners. It is necessary first to identify constructivist leaders. In identifying the

8

attributes of constructivists, Mezirow (2000) believed that research reveals the

following:

Constructivists understand that knowledge is constructed by the mind and not

by procedures, however useful procedures might be. Because they see the

knower as such an integral part of the known, people who work out of this

perspective do a lot of meta-thinking: they evaluate, choose, and integrate the

wide range of procedures and processes they bring to the meaning-making

process. (p. 90)

The results indicated are taken from assessing two different variables, the

learners and the constructivist leaders. If hindrances are experienced by constructivist

leaders, then learners do not experience the creation of knowledge and beliefs within,

learners do not receive meaning in learning, learners cannot access their experiences

embedded with knowledge and beliefs, learners do not experience diverse and unique

learning based upon demographic variables, learners cannot increase learning through

social activity, learners do not desire reflection and metacognition to construct

knowledge, learners cannot not assess their own learning, and learners do not expect

varied and unpredictable outcomes to their learning. The constructivist leader, if

hindrances are present, may not believe that learners are an important part in the

construction of knowledge. If hindrances are present, the constructivist leader may

also not engage in meta-thinking or think of presenting a meaning-making process for

learning events for autonomous learners. These observations are derived by taking

Walker’s (2002) list of behaviors ascribed to constructivist leaders and making those

behaviors nonexistent since hindrances to those behaviors may exist.

9

Autonomous Learners

This section introduces the theoretical basis for autonomous learning as a part

of the foundation for this research that provides for expected findings of hindrances

that constructivist leaders may experience. Autonomous learners resonate with

constructivism because they desire control for their learning (Confessore, 1992;

Ponton, Carr, & Derrick, 2004). The background information for the above theories

gives an important foundation for understanding the hindrances that leaders encounter

when shifting control for learning to autonomous learners.

Derrick et al. (2003) indicated that “the conditions of the workplace today are

even more driven by the need for employees to be autonomous” (p. 4). Manz and

Sims (2001) pointed out that “the most valued employees will be characterized by a

keen capacity to learn, or what they are capable of knowing quickly” (p. 19). Leading

autonomous learners is crucial.

To better understand the autonomous learner and research surrounding the

autonomous learner, consider the past foundational work in adult learning: Houle’s

(1961) seminal work gave rise to research in first identifying the continuous learning

activities and attributes of learners. Houle’s research was followed by Tough’s (1979)

research that indicated “self-learning” activities were undertaken by a majority of

adults living in the United States. H. B. Long’s (1989) seminal research investigated

the psychological aspects of self-directed learners, while others such as Foucher and

associates investigated environments that support the functionality of self-directed

learners. Yet, the aspects of the psychological dimensions of the learner’s attributes

received more attention with the research of Confessore (1992). The personality

10

characteristics associated with autonomous learning manifests in attributes of desire,

resourcefulness, initiative, and persistence (Confessore; Derrick et al., 2003). The

four attributes of autonomous learners were further developed to create the Learner

Autonomy Profile, a four-scale instrument assessing learner autonomy attributes in

conative factors: desire (Meyer, 2001), resourcefulness (Carr, 1999), initiative

(Ponton, 1999), and persistence (Derrick, 2000). Derrick et al. stated, “This notion of

the self in control of a learning situation forms the foundation of autonomous

learning” (p. 4).

Projected research findings. The expectation exists that facilitators of learning

may experience hindrances to fostering greater autonomy in learners as a goal of their

leadership in learning events (Mezirow, 2000). According to Mezirow, autonomous

learners may not experience the learning that they desire to learn (Boyatzis, 2002).

The results of this research may find that autonomous learners may be frustrated by

the inability of constructivist leaders to empower the autonomous learners because of

various hindrances. Many of the hindrances may come from those who believe in

behavioralism.

Behavioralist

A brief history of behavioralism presents the theoretical foundations for

teachers’ behaviors which call for controlling the learning situation. Mintzberg’s

(1973) study of a specific behavior changed the focus from traits to behaviors in

leadership study (Donaldson & Edelson, 2000). Pratt and Nesbit (2000) argued that

“thirty years ago, education was dominated by a discourse of behavioralism: learning

was defined as a change in behavior; if it couldn’t be observed, it was not important

11

. . . . An important responsibility of the teacher, therefore, was to specify what

behavior would stand as evidence of learning” (p. 119). Behavioralism results in

teacher-centered control of activities for learning. Further, exclusion from

autonomous thinking implies a domination of those in charge of education (Mezirow,

2000). One legacy of behavioralism in education supports classroom management

such as teachers modifying the behavior of students (Roblyer & Edwards, 2000).

Projected research findings. The findings of this research focus on hindrances

to autonomous learning posited by undergraduate constructivist leaders who believe

in behavioralism. Lester and Onore (1990) believed that the chief barrier inhibiting a

teacher to enact transactional, constructivist pedagogy exists with the behavioralism

belief that human beings cannot construct knowledge. Mezirow (2000) indicated that

“when we become aware of the pervasiveness of power, we begin to notice the

oppressive dimensions to adult educational practices that we had thought were neutral

or even benevolent” (p. 137). This research may find that the behavioralist teacher

exhibits attributes of oppressive dimensions in the educational practice such as age,

sex, or disability discrimination (Foucault, 1980). Contrasted to behavioralist ideas

are those of the constructivist, who utilizes learner-centered control of learning

activities.

Definition of Terms

Definitions may often appear in the methodology section of a dissertation;

however, a list of definitions in the beginning of this document serves the reader with

clarity to understand operational definitions important to understanding the various

constructs utilized in this research.

12

Autonomy: Characteristics exhibited independently from conation.

Autonomous Learning: Learners that manifest desire, initiative,

resourcefulness, and persistence in learning; actively

involved in curriculum decisions, and can learn without

the constant need for a teacher.

Behavioralism: A philosophy in learning theory that observes and

measures behaviors for behavior modification.

Constructivism: A philosophy in learning theory that considers an

individual capable of constructing knowledge.

Control: Exercising dominating influence over people or a

situation for a particular outcome.

Facilitators of learning: Those agents that inspire learning within another person

from the constructivist perspective.

Power: The ability to exercise control.

Teachers: Those agents that promote learning from a behavioralist

perspective.

Hypotheses

The hypothesis for this study implies that constructivist leaders experience

types of hindrances to their main objective of empowering constructive learning.

These hindrances may come from people and policies outside of the constructivist

leader, and the hindrances may come from self-imposed conflict within the

constructivist leader. Constructivist leaders experience hindrances to applying

constructivist principles during learning events with autonomous learners from

13

educational administrative leaders, organizational sources, behavioralist objections,

and personal limitations. Exactly the types of hindrances found is the creation of

knowledge which this study seeks.

Scope of the Study

This research did attempt to discover hindrances that constructivist leaders

experience when shifting power and responsibility for learning to autonomous

learners in an undergraduate university. An attempt is made to determine if exhibited

behaviors and various control factors create hindrances for constructivist leaders as

presented in the theoretical background section.

This research did not attempt to quantify or measure the effect of control

utilization upon autonomous learners. The research did focus on the observed and

self-reported behaviors and attitudes of undergraduate faculty. The research includes

observed impact of students’ behaviors to constructivist leaders in addition to

academic administration peoples’ behaviors and policies related to classroom

management. The research procedure did not include interviews or observations of

non-academic faculty or staff, and non-autonomous learners as determined by the

Learner Autonomy Profile (LAP) instrument (Park & Confessore, 2000). This

research did focus on constructivist leaders who teach undergraduate students at a

Christian university. Interviewing academic administrative positions with

considerable influence over constructivist leaders, such as academic deans or

directors of Teaching Excellence Centers becomes important for surveying the

administrative landscape. Administrative faculty committees are not considered since

they are often composed of faculty already mentioned for study.

14

Method of Inquiry

The method of inquiry chosen for this study involves a qualitative research

methodology. Since this research did seek to discover new knowledge, a triangular

methodology was chosen: interviews, observations, and documentation review

provide data for analysis.

Choice for Qualitative Inquiry and Rationale

Merriam and Caffarella (1999) stated, “In framing these studies, researchers

could explore the perceptions of power and control issues that are held by instructors,

students, and administrators. Qualitative methodologies, such as observations and

interviews, would probably be the most useful in this type of research” (p. 313). The

nature of this research calls for qualitative inquiry because the data needed to make

sense of this research comes from interviews, observations, and documentation

review in the field (Patton, 2002). A field study approach was chosen because it

requires the researcher to be immersed in the environment for research and where the

researcher becomes the instrument for research. My many years of experience in an

undergraduate university at various levels of responsibility provide a beneficial and

needed background for this research. Patton advised that “triangulation within a

qualitative inquiry strategy can be attained by combining both interviews and

observations, mixing different types of purposeful samples . . . examining how

competing theoretical perspectives inform a particular analysis” (p. 248). This

approach did enhance the research focus of this study to collect data for ascertaining

what hindrances are experienced by constructivist leaders when facilitating or

planning to facilitate a learning event of autonomous learners.

15

Interviews

After identifying constructivist leaders, the undergraduate constructivist

leaders, students, and administration interviews are administered by utilizing a

standardized open-ended interviewing protocol for each population group. According

to Patton (2002), there are four reasons for using standardized open-ended interviews:

(a) the instrument has inspection and replication value, (b) the instrument keeps the

interviewer and interviewee from accumulating or giving data outside of focus, (c)

the instrument provides for efficient use of time, and (d) the instrument makes

responses easy to locate for analysis. The type of behavioral and values/belief

questions asked in this research relate to present actions and beliefs concerning issues

of constructivist leadership, autonomous learning, and behavioralist behaviors, which

may indicate hindrances to constructivist leadership.

Observation

Interviews alone do not provide enough valid data to complete the research,

because Argyris and Schön (1974) claimed that professionals utilize mental maps that

guide how to act in situations that may differ from the theories they posit.

Observation in field study, according to Patton (2002), gives the researcher the ability

to understand the context, gives direct experience with the environment, gives

opportunity to witness actions that others may miss, gives an opportunity to learn

what was not discovered in the interview, gives an opportunity to see reality beyond

perception of interviewee, and gives the observer an opportunity to know more in-

depth the people in the research study. The observation of constructivist leaders and

students takes place once in an overt observation of a class in an undergraduate

16

course. Administrators removed from the classroom often may be found writing

policy about classroom behavior which may become a hindrance to constructivist

leaders. Little may be gained by observing an administrator, yet documents written by

administration may prove fruitful for this research.

Document Review

The documents regarding learning experiences in and out of the classroom

and policies for faculty provide data for realizing any hindrances via policy,

comments, and observations related to constructivist leaders empowering autonomous

learners. The review of documents may provide insight for asking particular questions

of constructivist leaders and autonomous learners in this research (Patton, 2002). The

above triangulation methodology should provide ample data for analysis.

Analysis of Data

The strategy of maximum variation sampling utilized for purposeful sampling

captures and should describe the various hindrances experienced as the central

themes. The themes of hindrances experienced may cut across the curriculum in an

undergraduate university. This could present a problem if the sample size consists of

too few people. However, Patton (2002) cautioned that “any common patterns that

emerge from great variation are of particular interest and value in capturing the core

experiences and central, shared dimensions of a setting or phenomenon” (p. 235).

Responses from interviews were coded and organized by question number and issue.

Patton suggested that “thick, rich description provides the foundation for qualitative

analysis and reporting” (p. 437). When considering interviews, an analytical

framework approach provides the foundation for organizing key issues within the

17

constructivist leadership such as empowering autonomous learners’ desire, initiative,

resourcefulness, and persistence. Other issues involve hindrances presented by

administrative or learning participants. The analysis of the data may reveal several

themes. It was important to not only list the hindrances by category but also present

the relative strength of the hindrance. This study presents some challenges which

limit this research’s generalizability.

Limitations of the Study

One of the chief limitations of this study comes from the nature of a

qualitative study: the researcher becomes the instrument and bias is possible. The

results of this study might not be applicable or generalized to another setting that

could be similar. This study is difficult to replicate again; however, the data gathered

is available for study by others.

Patton (2002) opined that the weakness of utilizing the open-ended

standardized interview comes from the inability of the interviewer to “pursue topics

or issues that were not anticipated when the interview was written” (p. 347).

Flexibility wanes with the open-ended standardized interview; however, the open-

ended standardized interview reduces interviewer effects and bias of leading

questions. It also gives comparability of responses.

Selectivity and convenience sampling determines the constructivist leaders

who were the focus of observations and interviews. Those constructivist leaders with

tenure were chosen as those who have definite skills in teaching or facilitating and

those who experience little political pressure concerning obtaining tenure; however,

some constructivist leaders without tenure may have better skills in teaching or

18

facilitating. This research risks irrelevancy in education because practitioners and

researchers could view the results as attributable to only a very small and select group

of constructivist leaders.

19

Chapter 2 – Literature Review

This literature review presents a further examination, introduced in chapter

one, of the current theories and research applicable for understanding the conceptual

foundation for this research: the hindrances constructivist leaders experience when

considering transference of control of learning to autonomous learners in an

undergraduate university setting.

Bass (2000) believed leadership in educational settings has a vast impact upon

the future of leadership and administration research. In a personal communication, M.

Weimer (personal communication, October 5, 2005), a noted leader in facilitating

learning, believed that exploring the hindrances that constructivist leaders experience

in transferring control to autonomous learners is important research. The need for this

research became further apparent as a noted speaker on autonomous learning

expounded the theory at a full faculty conference on teaching and learning at an

undergraduate university. I observed that some of the faculty in the audience were not

listening with open minds but focusing on hindrances to constructivism such as fear

of giving control to autonomous learners. To better understand what hindrances

constructivist leaders may encounter, it becomes necessary to understand the basis of

constructivism, autonomous learners, and behavioralism. These three variables may

give insight into the sources of hindrances and provide sources of help for

overcoming the hindrances to giving control for learning to autonomous learners.

Constructivism

In contrast to behavioralism, Lambert (2002) believed that constructivist

principles provide realistic ways for constructivist leaders to give autonomous

20

learners control for their learning. Constructivist leaders consider ways to facilitate

learning with autonomous learners (Walker, 2002). This section of the literature

review for research provides a foundation for understanding the principles of

constructivism as they apply to constructivist leadership. Matthews (2005) posited

that constructivism stresses understanding as the purpose of education which presents

a major paradigm advance over rote learning in traditional classrooms. Matthews

cited an example: one graduate course encouraged students to memorize everything,

but the students failed to understand what anything meant. Understanding

constructivism provides for a better understanding of current empirical research and

this understanding provides for the expected findings during this research involving

the hindrances constructivist leaders experience when facilitating learning events with

autonomous learners in an undergraduate university.

According to Walker (2002), if a professor inculcates the principles of

constructivist leadership in the learning situation, then the following might occur:

learners form within them knowledge and beliefs, learners give experiences meaning,

learners access their experiences imbued with knowledge and beliefs, learners

experience diverse learning based upon demographic variables, learners increase

learning through social activity, learners desire reflection and metacognition to

construct knowledge, learners assess their own learning, and learners expect varied

and unpredictable outcomes to their learning (Lambert, 2002).

Since constructivist leaders believe that learners form within themselves the

knowledge and beliefs (Walker, 2002), Lambert (2002) suggested that the

constructivist leader facilitates learning and the control for that learning. Often the

21

learner receives facilitation for their learning when the constructivist leader poses

questions to the learner or group of learners for stimulating self-construction and

collegial interaction. Autonomous learners engage in learning; however, some

students find taking responsibility and control for learning difficult. This may present

a hindrance to constructivist leadership. Manz and Sims (2001) suggested that control

over others in subordinate roles becomes self-imposed by the followers-learners.

Regardless of the controllers’ position, the effect of the control depends on how each

learner evaluates, accepts, and translates it in light of his or her own personal loyalty

(Manz & Sims). This research concerns autonomous learners who desire and accept

control for their intentional learning events (Ponton & Hall, 2003). Self-directed

learners can and may give special meaning to their learning event (Knowles, 1980; H.

B. Long, 1998, 2002).

Constructivist leaders facilitate the learners’ ability to give learning

experiences special meaning. Lambert (2002) posited that the constructivist leader as

facilitator of learning engages in conversations with autonomous learners that result

with the facilitator respectfully listening. As with effective listening, the facilitator

may reflect back to the learner what the learner just said so that meaning can be

understood. Developing a listening skill may prove important to the constructivist,

and without this developed skill, the hindrance of not listening fully may occur during

the facilitation of learners.

Constructivist leaders facilitate the learners’ access to their experiences

embedded with knowledge and beliefs. Zimmerman (2002) posited that the

constructivist leader seeks to find “the best understandings through a balance of

22

paraphrasing, inquiring, and articulating ideas” (p. 91). Zimmerman continued that

the learners in a group seek out a cohesion and meaning to the various ideas

expressed because the leader is not controlling the situation but facilitating learning

for meaning by expanding and clarifying concepts based upon common knowledge.

Constructivist leaders facilitate the learners’ experience of diverse learning

which gives the learner ownership for their learning. Wheatley (1999) stated, “We

don’t accept diversity because we’ve been told it’s the right thing to do. Only as

we’re engaged together in work that is meaningful do we learn to work through the

differences and value them” (p. 149). The constructivist leader not only provides for

shared experiences in social situations but also provides for a safe place for respecting

diverse beliefs.

Constructivist leaders facilitate the learners increased learning through social

activity. Manz and Sims (2001) suggested that the facilitator of learning, the

constructivist leader becomes a role model by, “practicing self-leadership, physically

and mentally, and doing so in a vivid and recognizable manner that can serve as a

model for others” (p. 61). This modeling presents itself in the context of the group of

learners not only with peers but also with reflective autonomous learners (Bandura,

1986).

Constructivist leaders facilitate the learners’ desire for reflection and

metacognition to construct knowledge. Lambert (2002) suggested that learners reflect

and demonstrate respectful listening when the constructivist leader facilitates and

models learning. Brookfield (1995) suggested that the constructivist leader not only

23

demonstrate enthusiasm for learning the topic but also “knowing something about

how they’re experiencing learning is essential” (p. 93).

Constructivist leaders facilitate learners’ access to their own learning. Not

only do learners create meaning and understanding but they also have narratives to

share. The value and use of narratives in education is substantiated by research

(Brunner, 1994). According to Zimmerman (2002), the constructivist leader not only

tells her story but also ask learners to tell their stories, which encourage personal

identification, growth, and gives future direction.

Constructivist leaders facilitate the learners’ expectation for varied and

unpredictable outcomes in their learning event. Manz and Sims (2002) suggested that

learners develop with the aid of a leader an independent internal routine of rewards

for their varied learning outcomes. Yet, these varied outcomes and rewards might

give a constructivist leader angst because most undergraduate institutions give the

responsibility for assessing outcomes to the faculty member, and this would require

massive retooling of a course if learners were given the responsibility (Mezeske,

2005). H. Long (personal communication, October 19, 2005) suggested that

assessment hinders constructivist leaders.

Lambert (2002) asserted that the constructivist leader redistributes power and

authority by relinquishing power from formally held positions and evoking power

from others to create a work situation of shared responsibility. According to Lambert,

the constructivist leader has a personal identity from the redistribution of power that

provides for “courage and risk, low ego needs, and a sense of possibilities" (p. 60).

24

The empirical research concerning constructivism utilized by constructivist

leaders at undergraduate institutions remains dismal. Little research has involved

autonomous learners and constructivist facilitators who experience hindrances to

giving control to autonomous learners.

The normative nature of constructivism might present some hindrances for

some undergraduate teachers of autonomous learners. The constructivist believes that

knowledge is constructed by the human reflection experience and fosters that

experience; however, behavioralism exists among teaching faculty. This tension of

competing philosophies may present a hindrance for those embracing constructivism

and desiring tenure. They may not know how to implement the techniques of

constructivist leadership. Faculty used to imparting knowledge “into” students might

think that their role under constructivism changed for worse and makes them

powerless (Weimer, 2002). Constructivist leaders actively listen rather than keep

control of the learning event by talking most of the time because of passion for the

topic. Another hindrance for some constructivist leaders may occur in role modeling.

Yet, another hindrance may occur when autonomous learners want and should give a

narration on their learning but narrations are dismissed as non-academic—analogous

to antidotal information in scientific research. Faculty might not know how to foster a

learner’s internal rewarding system which the constructivist leader facilitates.

Autonomous Learning

Because autonomous learners desire to take responsibility for their learning,

this impacts the facilitator of learning who usually holds the control for learning

(Derrick, Carr, & Ponton, 2003). This section provides a foundation for

25

understanding the needs and demands of autonomous learners as they interact with

facilitators of learning related to four conative characteristics associated with

autonomous learning: desire (Meyer, 2001), resourcefulness (Carr, 1999), initiative

(Ponton, 1999), and persistence (Derrick, 2000).

Desire

Meyer (2001) created a construct to better understand the autonomous

learners’ desire to learn. Meyer’s construct consists of three elements: basic freedoms

(understanding of circumstances and issues of expression), power management

(group identity, growth and balance, and love issues), and change skills (basic

communication skills and basic change behaviors). According to Candy (1992)

constructivist leaders were seldom identified as significant stimulators of people’s

desire to learn. Some student may circumvent the constructivist leader by using their

own resourcefulness to get materials and human resources for their learning.

Resourcefulness

Resourcefulness concerns the behavioral intention of the autonomous learner

to gather and assess the internal and external resources needed for a learning

experience (Carr, 1999). Rosenbaum (1989) posited that learned resourcefulness

derives from the acquisition of disciplined thinking, which delays immediate

gratification to achieve future rewards and prioritize values in problem solving (Carr

& Confessore, 1998). The autonomous learner proactively searches for resources that

benefit him or her in the learning experience; therefore, resources become important

to this learner and consequently impact the facilitator of learning concerning internal

and external resources (Knowles, 1980).

26

Hiemstra (1992) noted that providing a center for learning resources requires

physical space, technology, and staff. Yet, a savings may occur in diminished

instructional costs as self-directed learners increase because of a greater reliance upon

material and human resources outside the classroom (Garrison, 1989). The classroom

learning experience becomes, for the self-directed learner, just one of many learning

resources rather than the stereotypical primary mode of learning (Guglielmino, 1992).

Guglielmino also posited that peer learning groups are another resource for self-

directed learners. Hindrances may occur in any of the above learning experiences

while facilitators provide resources for learning in the organizational environment of

educational institutions’ cost cutting. Autonomous learners may present faculty with

hindrances, which involve initiative in learning.

Initiative

Ponton (1999) defined initiative as active goal-directedness in problem

solving and initiating an action. Likewise, H. B. Long (1998) introduced the postulate

that self-directed learners can take initiative in many ways to learn, and some are

negative for constructivist leaders such as self-directed learners choosing to ignore

instruction or choosing to accept weak surface learning. Ponton posited that

independence, based upon an individual’s personal will to learn, reveals initiative’s

importance to the pedagogy of self-directed learners (Boyatzis, 2002). Mezirow

(1984) suggested that this disposition toward action induces the will to “the learning

process by which adults come to recognize their culturally induced dependency roles

and relationships and the reasons for them and take action to overcome them” (p.

124).

27

When questioning whether faculty experience hindrances while considering

giving control to autonomous learners, the idea of self-directed learner initiative and

independence impacting a faculty person becomes apparent. M. Weimer (personal

communication, October 5, 2005) stated,

Bottom line answer (in my opinion): faculty doesn’t want to give up control

because doing so makes them feel powerless in a situation where they are

vulnerable. What if the students rise up and remove them? It's an irrational

fear, but made more powerful I think by our failure to reckon with the power

dynamic inherent in teaching. (para. 1)

A constructivist leader could conclude that initiative taken by an autonomous learner

might be the start of a pedagogical coup; therefore, the faculty member might

demonstrate fear and resistance to any attempts to give control to autonomous

learners. On a lesser level, autonomous learners may ignore the instruction, or relent

to surface learning.

Persistence

According to Derrick (2000), persistence is linked to volitional control as

exercised by the self-directed learner to obtain success in her learning experience.

Volition requires self-reflection and maintenance of internal goals for any needed

correction of effort (Corno, 1994). Derrick suggested that a major cause of

underachievement in education begins with some students’ inability for self-control.

Yet, some students according to Derrick demonstrate self-awareness, selectivity, self-

directedness, and goal setting that “facilitates persistence in learning” (p. 23). The

students who are self-observant may search for role models (Bandura, 1986).

28

Bandura stated, “By attending to the pattern of successes and failures of others,

observers can learn what behavior is most appropriate in given situations” (p. 302).

Some constructivist leaders may not want to share their goals for students to observe

successes and certainly not for students to observe failures. H. Long (personal

communication, October 19, 2005) suggested that the following are hindrances:

“institutional expectations; socialization of the constructivist leaders, including their

own experiences as learners (students) and their personal expectations; difficulty in

ascertaining evaluation processes; learner resistance; nature of the content/skill”

(para. 1). In H. Long’s list, his second listed obstacle for constructivist leaders

considering transferring control of learning to autonomous learners is “socialization

of the profs, including their own experiences as learner and their personal

expectations” (para 1). Many constructivist leaders may experience various impacts

from the autonomous learners’ penchant for self-directed learning, and the Learner

Autonomy Profile can help identify the autonomous learners among students.

The Empirical Research

The Learner Autonomy Profile (LAP), is an inventory four-scale instrument

assessing learner autonomy attributes in conative factors: desire (Meyer, 2001),

resourcefulness (Carr, 1999), initiative (Ponton, 1999), and persistence (Derrick,

2000). The LAP research instrument comprises a number of inventories that measure

the psychological construct of learner autonomy. The LAP inventory identifies

aspects of a person’s autonomous learning. The only help the LAP offers for this

research is to identify autonomous learners associated with interviewed constructivist

leaders.

29

Perry and Penner’s (1990) research concluded that “students lacking control

over academic performance are incapable of benefiting from good instruction” (p.

262). Autonomous learners may contribute to the challenges and hindrances felt and

experienced by the undergraduate professor. The autonomous learner may desire

more learning experiences than the undergraduate professor provides. The

autonomous learners may call for more resources than a university can afford plus

human resources of a group, which a professor may not know how to facilitate. The

initiative of autonomous learners may make a professor feel irrelevant or powerless

(M. Weimer, personal communication, October 5, 2005). Persistent autonomous

learners may look for and seek out role models of learning, and the undergraduate

professor may disdain or ignore role modeling. The LAP provides a proven research

inventory for identifying those autonomous learners, which may bring into tension

challenges that become hindrances for constructivist leaders. Not only do autonomous

learners challenge the thinking of undergraduate constructivist leaders, but also three

perspectives might influence and challenge the thinking of undergraduate

constructivist leaders: behavioralism and constructivism.

Behavioralism

Behavioralism calls for constructivist leaders to control the learning

environment rather than give control to autonomous learners (Walker, 2002). This

section provides a foundation for understanding the principles of behavioralism as

they apply to constructivist leaders of undergraduate students. This foundation

provides for a better understanding of current empirical research and for the expected

outcomes during this research concerning the hindrances constructivist leaders

30

experience when considering transference of control to autonomous learners in

undergraduate courses.

According to Walker (2002), behavioralism calls for constructivist leaders to

“calibrate behavior to achieve set learning objectives and goals” (p. 11). Walker

suggested that behavioralism appears in leadership literature when reading about

“transactional leadership” exchanging rewards, which shape workers’ behaviors to

reach stated goals (Burns, 1978). Glasser (1997) suggested that some constructivist

leaders hesitate to give students control because of behavioralism. According to

Matthews (2005), the constructivist idea of developing knowledge within a learner

presents subjective and not realistic operational definitions but relativistic and

humanistic constructs. Under behavioralism, the emphasis centers on goals rather

than on the learner; therefore, a teacher operating under behavioralism could be

observed fulfilling his or her own goals for the course (H. B. Long, 2002). His or her

syllabus might emphasize rules with rewards and perhaps punishments. Educational

institutions might create environments for outcome-based assessment, which lowers

democratic types of thinking (Glickman, 1993). Walker posited that non-

constructivist leaders may dismiss experiences and practical understandings of the

learner as not relevant to the curriculum or classroom learning activities. Gardiner’s

(1998) research found that in most higher education courses, the communication of

facts from teacher to students and discussion that requires only the recall of facts

dominate class activities.

Behavioralism presents hindrances for giving control to autonomous learners.

So faculty who believed in behavioralism did not give over control for learning. Some

31

behavioralist behavior necessitates the “calibration of behavior” of the learner

(Walker, 2002). Learning outcomes take priority over the learner who takes second

place in the learning process. The learning focuses upon objective truth told by the

teacher that the student must remember. Behavioralism principles do not allow for

shared group meaning or experiences where learners construct their own knowledge.

Summary

This chapter provided a foundation of understanding that focused on

constructivism and constructivist leaders, autonomous learners, and behavioralism.

These variables cause faculty to consider giving or not giving autonomous learners

control for their learning; this impacts the facilitator of learning who holds the control

for learning. This chapter provided a foundation for better understanding the expected

outcomes during this research concerning the behavioral hindrances constructivist

leaders experience when considering transference of control to autonomous learners

in undergraduate courses. Autonomous learners might provoke hindrances in

constructivist leaders by desiring different learning experiences, asking for more

resources than available, showing initiative for learning that might make a

constructivist leader powerless, and seeking out authentic role models. The

hindrances presented are many and involve leading by facilitating the learner to be

more autonomous. In this process, the constructivist leaders of autonomous learners

may experience hindrances: desiring to talk rather than listen, desiring to answer

rather than question, desiring dependence rather than student independence, and

desiring the known and practiced teaching methodology rather than fear of failure.

Constructivist leadership principles mandate shared responsibility with learners,

32

which some faculty find untenable with any kind of student. Likewise, behavioralism

mandates that teachers control the behavior of students. The philosophy of

behavioralism presents a hindrance to giving control to autonomous learners, and it

emphasizes the need to control for outcomes and the knowledge base for learning.

Conversely, constructivism provides for the constructivist leader to give control to

learners. Constructivism echoes some of the lessons already learned from

transformative leadership, which some constructivist leaders might find as a

hindrance to their skill and readiness to value the use of narratives, aid autonomous

learners in inculcating internal rewards, provide a safe place for learners to take risks

and make meaning of his or her learning, listen and provide a problem solving

atmosphere, and provide for group and social learning.

These hindrances presented to constructivist leaders highlighted in this

literature search give some insight why the faculty attending an autonomous learning

conference might give pause for critical reflection. To further research this issue, a

methodology of research can be found in chapter three of this study.

33

Chapter 3 – Method

The qualitative research methodology utilized for this research provides a

research means for discovery of new knowledge. This inductive research seeks to

discover the hindrances experienced by constructivist leaders in their facilitation of

learning with autonomous learners.

Description and Rationale of Methodology

According to Patton (2002), qualitative methods facilitate an in-depth field-

based research where not enough is understood for the creation of standardized

instruments. M. Weimer (personal communication, October 5, 2005) believed no

empirical studies exist concerning the focus of this study: hindrances experienced by

constructivist leaders facilitating learning with autonomous learners. The qualitative

research method involves gathering data via interviews, observation, and reviewing

documents in starting the inductive process of discovery to answering the research

question. Creswell (1998) suggested that the qualitative study methodology provides

what this research proposes as a process: “The researcher builds a complex, holistic

picture, analyzes words, reports detailed views of informants, and conducts the study

in a natural setting” (p. 15). Therefore, no quantitative testing of a hypothesis exists in

this research. The guiding focus of this qualitative research comes from the research

question given above. Additional research questions of a lesser nature exist and

concern the hindrances of transferring control for learning to autonomous learners.

This research aims to capture the experience, the phenomena, of hindrances

experienced by constructivist leaders facilitating learning with autonomous learners.

34

From the traditions of varied methodologies in qualitative studies, this

research utilizes the phenomenological study. According to Moerer-Urdahl and

Creswell (2004), the phenomenological approaches trace back to German philosophy

and two major approaches—hermeneutic phenomenology and transcendental

phenomenology. The transcendental phenomenology chosen for this study derives

from Heidegger and Husserl. Heidegger and Husserl’s main concern in obtaining

phenomenological data was to get the essence of a person’s experience with the

phenomena. Heidegger, a student of Husserl, purported the concept of “being there”

in relationship to a person and his or her world experience (Groenewald, 2004).

According to Vandenberg (1997), Sartre and Merleau-Ponty promoted the influence

of Husserl and Heidegger in researchers utilizing a phenomenological approach.

Bentz and Shapiro (1998) summed up the idea as “the intent is to understand the

phenomena in their own terms—to provide a description of human experience as it is

experienced by the person herself” (p. 96).

Creswell (1998) believed that this type of study should perform the following

actions: indicate proof of phenomenological existence, indicate philosophical

perspective of the phenomenon, indicate research on a single phenomenon, indicate a

caring interaction with participants, indicate the researcher’s preconceptions in

bracketing, indicate the research phenomenological data analysis steps, and indicate a

reflection on the philosophical base of the phenomenon at the end of the study. The

philosophical perspective employed in this phenomenological approach utilizes the

learning theory of constructivism and the constructivist leader perspective by

examining the experience of selected undergraduate professors (Kvale, 1996). The

35

phenomenon studied involves the hindrances experienced by undergraduate

professors considering the transference of control for learning to autonomous

learners. According to Moustakas (1994), the goal of this kind of research requires a

determination of the participants’ meaning of the experience, phenomena, that

constructivist leaders have experienced and gives a comprehensive description of the

phenomenon. The specific phenomenological data analysis steps appear later in this

chapter involving sampling, collection of data, and analysis of data. The discussion

chapter at the end of this dissertation presents from the research some lessons learned

concerning constructivist leadership and hindrances to shifting control for learning to

autonomous learners.

In order to perform a phenomenological study, the qualitative design utilized

for this research inculcates the principles of purposeful sampling as defined by Patton

(2002): researching via cases for study such as selected people, a criterion sampling,

because these participants offer useful observable behavior of interest, which gives

some insight into the phenomenon (Creswell, 1998). This research design also utilizes

a field study methodology because it can give an abundance of rich data to better

understand the research question.

In summary, this qualitative research seeks to investigate the hindrances that

undergraduate teachers experience when considering transference of control for

learning to autonomous learners. Creswell (1998) believed that qualitative research

gives the appropriate answers to research questions involving how and what. This

study seeks to provide an in-depth holistic understanding through the use of a

phenomenological approach. This approach provides for participants to relate their

36

stories centered on a particular phenomena, the hindrance of transference of control to

learners. The field study makes this possible since the participants know the

researcher (Rubin & Rubin, 2005). This research considers important the observation

and interview of participants in the context in which they operate especially in

contexts where direct observation opportunities exist for research.

The Research Context

The research context plays an important role in research in which the

environment can provide rich data. The context becomes an important issue when

considering the generalizability of the research results. Cronbach and Associates

(1980) pointed out a middle ground which the researcher takes in the debate over the

ability to generalize results from a context by suggesting that the research design

balance depth and breadth in order to present a viable “extrapolation” (pp. 231-235).

Patton (2002) supported the idea of extrapolation as useful. The context in this

research may provide for some breadth, since the context involves a full curriculum in

a liberal arts university.

Identify the Place of the Study

Taylor University, located in Upland and Fort Wayne, Indiana, U.S.A.,

defines itself as an intentional, Christ-centered, learning, living, and serving

community. This research took place only on the Upland campus, and hereafter, to

give this university anonymity in this research, I named the school: the university.

Since the creation of the university in 1846, the hallmark of its education has been to

seek and understand an integration of biblical faith and learning. Although once

aligned with the Methodist Church, today this university could be described as an

37

evangelical, independent, interdenominational Christian liberal arts university. The

university serves Christian men and women in a community that consists largely of

traditional college students living in a residential campus setting and pursuing

baccalaureate-level degree programs. The student body comprises over 1,875 students

divided almost equally between men and women who come from almost every state

and from over 30 foreign countries. The first stated purpose of the university

promises to provide whole person education, involving students in learning

experiences imbued with a vital Christian interpretation of truth and life which foster

their intellectual, emotional, physical, vocational, social, and spiritual development.

This university has for many years been ranked as second in a list of quality academic

liberal arts universities in the Midwest by the U.S. News and World Report (2005)

magazine. The academic departments are comprised of seven academic divisions:

business, education, fine and applied arts, letters, natural sciences, social sciences,

and general studies and academic support.

The facilities used for learning experiences involve many of the academic

facilities; however, the most utilized facilities are classrooms and faculty offices.

Classrooms according to H. B. Long (2002) can influence learning. The classrooms

utilized in this university vary in form, yet most would have desks placed in rows

facing the front. Some rooms utilize table space with chairs that face the front. In

almost all classrooms, utilization of overhead projectors and wall screens project

images from various sources manipulated electronically by the professor along with

utilization of whiteboard surfaces for communicating information. Various

laboratories exist for computer science, language, science, and media; however, for

38

this study I need the ability to view professor-student interaction and many

laboratories have only students performing their experiments. Yet, students visit

faculty offices, which at this university tend to be private and often reflect the

interests of the professor with artifacts such as artwork, memorabilia, citations,

awards, etc. Many faculty members at this university consider their offices as a safe,

confidential area for advising students and conferring with colleagues. The collection

of data through interviews took place in the various chosen faculty offices and at a

particular time.

Identify the Time of the Study and Permission

The collection of data occurred during the first 2 weeks of December 2005,

which are the last 2 weeks of the fall semester. The interviews and class observations

occurred during the regular working hours of a day.

Permission for collecting data at this university comes from the University

Institutional Review Board (IRB). This board acts as a standing committee of the

university to oversee that research performed at the university complies with Federal

guidelines. The IRB at the university where the study occurs was consulted for

permission to perform research with the collection of data. The committee was

apprised of the following factors of research as Bogdan and Biklen (1992) suggested:

why the site was chosen, time and resources required of participants, any disruption

caused by researcher’s presence, how the results was reported, benefits to the

researcher and participants’ organization, and two documents: (a) a copy of the

document used for informed consent which complies with Federal regulation, 45 CFR

39

46.117, and (b) a copy of rationale for the Federal 45 CFR 46 exempt status for the

research study.

The research context of this study involves the small liberal arts Christian

university located in a Midwest state of the United States where an extrapolation of

results makes possible a generalization. This university intentionally provides for

quality education by fostering a holistic facilitation of learning. The facilities of the

university provide places for learning with available modern technology in the

classrooms. Faculty offices might also be considered places where learning occurs for

students and faculty. The data collection took take place during February 2006. The

procedures for research conducted at the university require the Institutional Review

Board at the university become involved to assure the compliance of Federal

guidelines for research and compliance in obtaining particular permissions for

participants involved in this research. This phenomenological research requires a

criterion sample when seeking participants within the university context.

Sampling Procedures

Creswell (1998) argued that sampling strategies are limited for

phenomenological studies, and for this study the most important sampling strategy,

criterion sampling, mandates that all participants meet some criterion. For this

research the criterion, a shared experience—phenomena of professors hindered in

considering giving control to autonomous learners—becomes the guiding action for

purposeful sampling in selecting professors.

40

Selecting the Samples and Participants

Patton (2002) pointed out, “qualitative inquiry typically focuses in depth on

relatively small samples, selected purposefully” (p. 230). This phenomenological

study did describe the real life meaning for several undergraduate professors

concerning the hindrances encountered when considering giving control to

autonomous learners (Creswell, 1998). Patton purported, “There are no rules for

sample size in qualitative inquiry” (p. 244). Rather the researcher should ask: Does

“the sampling strategy support the study’s purpose?” (Patton, p. 245).

To select the professors a criterion sampling becomes important. The

professors need to have confronted the hindrances involved when considering giving

control for learning to autonomous learners. The researcher did ask faculty to

participate in this study who have demonstrated creative methods of self-directed

learning through teacher workshops, faculty meetings, conferences, and campus

reputation. The selected professors have attained at least 5 years of teaching.

Importantly, the professors should demonstrate mastery of their field and of teaching.

According to Rubin and Rubin (2005), the diversity of faculty chosen becomes

important so that differing perspectives may give a richer data than if a homogenous

faculty group were chosen. The professors were asked to name the course and class in

which they think they confront the issue of giving control to the learners. It may be

apparent that the professor may know the names of autonomous learners in their

classes especially the class set for observation.

41

Defining the Units of Analysis

The personal interview comprises a central position of focus for gathering

data in this research. Regarding the number of interviewees, there appears little

consensus among researchers; Dukes (1984) suggested three to ten, which seems to

be a central tendency. Polkinghorne (1989) posited that the interview should last at

least 2 hours with in-depth questions posed. Polkinghorne suggested that the

researcher add to the interviews for phenomenological studies some self-reflection

and any depiction of the experience outside of the context in literature or art. Creswell

(1998) supported Moustakas’s (1994) proposition that the phenomenological study

interview should ask questions related to possible structural meanings of the

experience, underlying themes and context, feelings and thoughts related to

experience, and invariant structural themes (p. 99). Creswell suggested getting written

permission to involve participants in the research. The interview of professors

presents the first part of the triangular method used to generate rich data.

The selected professors’ classroom instruction was observed, and this data

becomes the second part of the triangular methodology. The classroom presents a

place for observing an opportunity in which the professor might negotiate control for

learning with students. This observation should give further insight into the

professors’ behavior concerning control for learning given or withheld from

autonomous learners. The classroom performance suggests not only an augmentation

of ideas from the interviews but also gives a means to see if what the professor says

or thinks may be different from the actual classroom behavior which Argyris and

Schön (1974) suggested might occur.

42

The triangulation method of using three different sources comes together with

the third part: an interview of autonomous learners’ who engage the selected

professor in class. The autonomous learners’ interviews involve asking them the same

questions as the professors. The autonomous learners may not know some of the

hindrances; however, their perspective gives important insights that may differ from

the professor’s perception or behavior.

The sampling procedures for this research involve those appropriate for a

phenomenological study. The criterion sampling did mean that a criterion of shared

phenomena experience was determined for the purposeful sampling of undergraduate

professors. Since the university context of this research has seven distinct divisions, it

seems reasonable to select seven professors from those various divisions which

represent a liberal arts cross curriculum of disciplines. The means utilized to better

understand the shared phenomena of hindrances experienced by professors when

considering transference of control to autonomous learners involves interviews,

observation of classes, and autonomous student interviews.

Gathering Data

Patton (2002) recommended that three types of data collection occur with

qualitative research: in-depth, open-ended interviews, direct observation, and review

of written documents. Creswell (1998) posited that the phenomenology research

study utilizes individuals who experienced the phenomenon, and selection is based

upon a criterion sample of up to 10 people with long interviews, bracketing the

researcher’s experiences, and storing information through transcriptions and

computer files. The qualitative interview process highlights variables in the

43

circumstance of the phenomenon of this study: hindrances experienced by

constructivist leaders when desiring to facilitate the learning of autonomous learners.

The first part of the data collection process involves collecting data through

qualitative interviews.

Collecting Data through Interviews

According to Rubin and Rubin (2005), “Qualitative interviewing is both an art

and a science” (p. 15). Rubin and Rubin claimed that the responsive interviewing

model helps a researcher understand the importance the participant ascribes to the

researched phenomena. The actual interviewing style utilizes a mixture of informal

conversation with sometimes an assertive style of challenging assertions thereby

“showing the interviewee that more is expected than pat answers” (p. 31). A list of

questions (see Appendix A) gives the researcher a structure for asking similar

questions of the various selected professors. Rubin and Rubin suggested a flexible

conversational interchange providing for exploring in-depth some details concerning

the researched phenomena. A review of the interview afterward gives the researcher

an idea if the listed questions are leading and prescriptive. The interview should give

the interviewee a feeling of satisfaction because they told their story and someone

really listened (Rubin & Rubin). The interviewees did represent a diverse group. It

was important for the credibility of the interviews that other researchers can

understand the process and review the findings if necessary. Therefore the researcher

took notes about how the process transpired with each interviewee. A tape recording

instrument facilitates the recording and history of the conversations. A transcription

of the tapes makes for easy viewing and storage that assures better access if, for some

44

reason, a tape becomes corrupted through storage. Participant permission for

recording can be found in the overall participant permission required by the

Institutional Review Board. A notebook provides a record for the interviewer of noted

environmental variables before and after the interview, for example, the mental state

of the interviewer and any environmental issues that could have impacted the

interviewee’s state of mind. Notes concerning the thoughts of the researcher might

provide important information and perspective while writing the results of this

research (Rubin & Rubin).

Autonomous learners were interviewed, who interact with designated faculty

in this research. Identifying autonomous learners, a purposeful sampling strategy,

occurs when the students agree that they possess the attributes of autonomous

learners: desire, persistence, initiative, and resourcefulness. The autonomous learner’s

interview did contain the same questions as the faculty member even though students

may not know the answers or have an answer for some questions. For example, when

asked about the professor’s personal teaching philosophy, the student described

behaviors but was unable to describe philosophical reasoning. This action allowed for

students to report some contradictory answers from those of the professors in his or

her interview.

Kvale (1996) summarized the seven stages of effective interview

investigations as the following: focus formulation of the purpose for the interview,

design the interview to fit the research method, conduct interview based upon a guide,

prepare a transcription, decide upon method of analysis appropriate for the interview,

check for reliability and validity, and report true findings. These steps exist and can

45

be found integrated into this research. Interviews comprise only one form of data

collection. Another form utilized in this research involves observation.

For the second triangular method of collecting data, the classroom offers an

arena for collecting data on the interchange between professors and students as well

as autonomous learners. The researcher did perform the observation in the classroom

with as little interference as possible. A digital video camera provides a digital video

taped record of the classroom interactions. The researcher did take notes, especially

on a predetermined list of things to observe (see appendix B), while allowing for

other variables to be noted. The classroom observation occurred only once. Most

professors present their teaching style in consistent ways, and if professors act

differently for the researcher during the class, then another visit would elicit the same

behavior. Since the researcher knows most of the faculty, and shares a collegial

relationship, most professors should be comfortable with the researcher in their

classroom as long as the researcher does not interact with the professor or students

during the class session. Some classes may consist of 50 to 90 minutes of class time.

The last of the triangular methods of collecting data consists of collecting

artifacts, collecting copies of artifacts, or collecting pictures of artifacts (Patton,

2002). For example, syllabi and policy statements regarding the classroom were

collected, a copy might be made of a teaching award or learner-centered award, and a

picture might be taken of a professor’s office that has many pictures of students, etc. I

examined the selected professor’s department information on the web and in print

describing the professor. The selected professor’s web page was copied for

investigation regarding student-centered ideas and any fostering of autonomous

46

learning. Patton posited that the documentation does not make sense without the

interviews, and the focus of the interviews is made more real through the field

observations. All three give a powerful holistic picture of data for analysis.

The data for this research was collected from a criterion selected sample of

undergraduate professors. The triangulation of the data collection involves the use of

interviews, observations, and artifacts. The interviews with chosen professors seek to

gain the most information in an extensive personal interview using prescribed

interview questions. All professors’ interviews are taped and transcribed for data

analysis. The second part of the triangulation involves observing the classroom

dynamic of the selected professor. The classroom observations were noted according

to a prescribed list of observations that would give indication of behavioralist or

constructivist behaviors. The last part of the triangulation involves collecting artifacts

which give important information concerning the phenomenon studied. Policy

statements, syllabi, and other documents were copied for collection. All of the data

collection techniques are designed to give a holistic picture of the phenomenon in

order to aid the data analysis.

Analyzing Data

Regarding phenomenological qualitative analyzing of data, several types of

procedures exist. The choice for this study was transcendental phenomenology,

grounded in the work of Husserl (1931), who provided the foundation for Moustakas’

(1994) qualitative method for phenomenological research. The steps for analyzing

phenomenological data, according to Moustakas, follow a rigorous procedure: first,

the researcher describes his or her own experiences with the phenomenon; second, the

47

researcher identifies significant statements in the data collected from participants’

interviews, chooses significant incidents from observations, and chooses significant

passages or pictures from artifacts; third, the researcher groups the significant

statements, observations, and artifacts into meaning units and themes using a mind

map technique; fourth, the researcher synthesizes the units and themes into a

description of the experiences of the participants (textual and structural descriptions);

and fifth, the researcher constructs a composite description of the meanings and the

essences of the experience.

Following the above recommended steps, the investigator did identify his

hindrances experienced when considering the transference of control for learning to

autonomous learners. This epoche section did include a perspective on learning

theory and facilitating learning. Moerer-Urdahl and Creswell (2004) suggested that

the process of horizonalization categorization facilitates the understanding and

identification; whereby, the significant information is placed in a table for readers’

understanding of varied perspectives (Moustakas, 1994). Concerning the development

of meaning units or themes, the investigator, according to Moustakas, deletes

statements not relevant to the topic, repeated statements, and overlapping statements.

This research investigated the themes or meaning units with coding and developed

networks. The research investigation concluded with a composite description of the

meanings of the phenomena under study as found in chapter five. The

phenomenological data analysis incorporated the five steps as suggested by

Moustakas. This strategy presents a valid and reliable way to analyze the data.

48

Maintaining Rigor, Credibility, and Quality

Patton (2002) postulated that three areas of research procedure insure the

quality and credibility of a study. The three procedures involve “pursuing rigorous

methods and triangulations strategies, assessing and acknowledging the contextual

dimensions of qualitative inquiry, and discussing the credibility of the researcher as

instrument variables” (p. 552). According to Lincoln and Guba (1986), the

constructivist research presented here can be assessed for quality by credibility,

transferability, dependability, and confirmability: these are analogous to internal

validity, external validity, reliability, and objectivity. Patton substantiated Lincoln

and Guba by highlighting credibility. Credibility in this research is assured by

specific methods of rigor in data collection and systematic analysis of data. Also

credibility of the research depends upon the philosophical belief in the value of

qualitative inquiry such as inductive analysis and holistic thinking (Patton). Patton

continued that in addition to the researcher’s philosophy, the credibility of the

researcher transfers credibility to the research which comes from “training,

experience, track record, status, and presentation of self” (p. 552)

The researcher has benefited from training through self-directed study in

learning theory and andragogy. The researcher has a proven record of excellence in

the classroom and in higher education proved by receipt of the campus leadership

award in 1994, the Pushkin teaching award in 1999, the Academy of the Financial

Elite honorary degree in 2001, and the Nizhni Novgorod State University 10-year

celebration award for helping to initiate the first financial faculty. The researcher

teaches business courses and utilizes constructivist leadership ideas in developing

49

curriculum and assessments. The researcher knows the university because of his

status as Associate Dean of Business and his 23 years of service. The researcher

remains committed to continuous learning.

Summary of the Method

This research seeks to investigate the hindrances undergraduate teachers

experience when considering transference of control for learning to autonomous

learners. The research utilizes a phenomenological study which fosters the focus on

the above phenomena, which selected professors through purposeful and criterion

sampling have experienced. This qualitative study provides for a holistic approach in

a university setting. The context involves a small Christian liberal arts university in

the Midwest, which ranks high in academic status. The facilities located on the

campus provide for various teaching technology. This university focuses on holistic

education as primarily a teaching institution. The Institutional Review Board oversees

research done on campus and became a resource providing permission to participate

in research forms that comply with Federal guidelines. An extrapolation of results

makes this context viable for generalization. Creswell (1998) suggested the

purposeful sampling and Patton (2002) stated that triangulation makes for better

research, so three types of units provided data for analysis: selected professor

interviews, professor classroom instruction, and autonomous learners’ interviews

about the professors. Professors are selected by having experienced the phenomena.

Students are selected by professors and the LAP, and classes are selected by

professors studied. When gathering data from the above another strategy of structure

becomes important: using interviews, observation video tapes, and artifacts.

50

Procedures for interviewing have been considered and a list of questions appears in

Appendix A. Procedures for observation result in a list for reference and appears in

Appendix B. Analyzing the data follows the suggestion of Moustakas (1994), who

posts five steps: first, the researcher describes his or her own experiences with the

phenomenon; second, the researcher identifies significant statements in the data

collected from participants’ interviews, chooses significant incidents from

observations, and chooses significant passages or pictures from artifacts; third, the

researcher groups the significant statements, observations, and artifacts into meaning

units and themes using a mind map technique; fourth, the researcher synthesizes the

units and themes into a description of the experiences of the participants (textual and

structural descriptions), and fifth, the researcher constructs a composite description of

the meanings and the essences of the experience. The rigor, credibility, and quality of

this research follow from the design and strategies listed above. Another source of

credibility of research comes from the experience of the research in higher education,

which is substantial and extensive. This research might provide the leaders of

learning communities’ important insights in what hinders undergraduate teachers

from transference of control for learning to autonomous learners.

51

Chapter 4 – Data

In this chapter, the qualitative data presented were collected, recorded, and

analyzed using a transcendental phenomenological research approach. Four major

sections comprise this chapter: epoche pilot study on constructivist leadership in

course development with autonomous learners, interviews with professors, identified

autonomous learning barriers, and constructivist leaders’ attributes and actions.

Intentional insertion of professors’ interviews gives a voice to the professors’

experiences in teaching undergraduates and provides a ready framework of reference

when particular data highlights parts of their story. The autonomous learning barriers

relate to the four conative factors of autonomous learning: desire, initiative,

persistence, and resourcefulness. Constructivist leaders’ attributes and actions prove

important for contrasting identified barriers for autonomous learners compared to

constructivist leadership routines.

The data presented in this chapter followed particular steps for analyzing

phenomenological data, which according to Moustakas (1994), follow a rigorous

procedure: first, the researcher describes his or her own experiences with the

phenomenon; second, the researcher identifies significant statements in the data

collected from participants’ interviews, chooses significant incidents from

observations, and chooses significant passages or pictures from artifacts; third, the

researcher groups the significant statements, observations, and artifacts into meaning

units and themes using a mind map technique; fourth, the researcher synthesizes the

units and themes into a description of the experiences of the participants; and fifth,

52

the researcher constructs a composite description of the meanings and the essences of

the experience.

Epoche Pilot Study on Constructivist Leadership in Course Development

According to Moustakas (1994) and Moerer-Urdahl and Creswell (2004), the

epoche is the first step in the analysis of the phenomenological process. The approach

gives the research an opportunity to set aside any views that may exist concerning the

phenomenon. This section allows for a transparency of views to be shared so that they

can be eliminated as much as possible to focus on the views reported by the

professors interviewed in this research (Moustakas).

The university site of this study provides an opportunity during a January term

of 4 weeks to offer a special topics course that a student may choose to enroll for

study. What ensues is a description of the specialized course, Leadership in Business,

and its development utilizing constructivist leadership constructs advocated by

Lambert (2002). The course was coauthored by the professor and the five students

enrolled in the course. Four of the five students were autonomous learners by their

admission of a keen desire, resourcefulness, initiative, and persistence. Meeting

together, we examined the vast literature of leadership. The students were asked what

they wanted to study in light of their various perspectives of future need and present

curiosity. We started meeting with the intention of reviewing the various perspectives

developed over time in the leadership discipline from the great man theories to the

transformational leadership theories. The students gave major input to generating a

syllabus for the course. They set the beginning topics for discussion along with dates

for assignments. It was expected that students would research the various topics and

53

come to the group meeting ready to share their research findings and thoughts. This

3-hour credit course met for several hours every working day to fulfill contact hours

necessary for course and student assessment. The students in cooperation with the

professor decided that they would keep a daily learning journal of their thinking and

especially those thoughts related to the research learning projects. At the end of the

course, the students decided to present a portfolio along with a suggested grade that

carried 50% of the weight for the final grade. With the input of students, it was

determined that the professor hold a hearing for students to make their claim and oral

defense of their learning including the use of any documents in the portfolio. After

hearing the student’s defense, the group decided that the professor award a grade

based on the student’s evidence for learning, which counted for the other half of the

final grade. The students brought their research papers to class and modified them

when necessary because of additional learning. Then the students placed it as

evidence in their learning portfolio. After a number of meetings, a basic review of the

leadership literature was accomplished. The students’ interest waned.

Each student wanted to study an aspect of leadership based upon their desire

and perceived need in the future. For example, Jason knew that he would run his

father’s business after completing college. He wanted to know how to lead

construction workers, while Jesse wanted to explore personal traits of confidence and

the role of arrogance in leadership. At this point, the small group of five students

developed into a cohesive group requiring accountability of the members and offering

suggestions for the members’ learning while the professor facilitated the group but

kept a respectable distance from interaction with the members.

54

Members in the group were asked to tell the truth no matter the consequences

and were given the right to tell their truth to each other or pass in silence. An African

spear was used to give symbolism to the fact that group members would face any fear

regarding their leadership interests and always speak the truth. Members of the group

developed a routine of telling what they were thinking and feeling during group

discussions. As some students would relate later, telling the truth provided trust in

one another and the professor. As they related their past research to what they wanted

to discover for that day, they would state their future work as their assignment. For

example, John, through a series of learning events, discovered that he could not make

a decision without consulting someone about it. His work, facilitated by the professor,

was to read about codependency and leadership, which he did not know was a

subterfuge to his leadership. At one point the professor offered a work project to

John, and John accepted it right away. The professor then asked John if this was

really the work that John wanted and thought that he needed to do. John responded

"no" to the amazement of the professor who had offered help but from the professor’s

perspective. John came up with a much better work in research to fit his need. It was

evident that John knew what he could accomplish in reality. Each member would tell

what they were thinking, what their work needed to accomplish, and what would be

done by the next meeting. These autonomous learners did quality work, and at each

meeting gave evidence of their learning by quoting relevant and new ideas along with

theorists or relating a learning experiment. Sometimes they needed to continue an

aspect. Jason realized during one meeting that he did not listen well. He then realized

that active listening was necessary for leading a group of construction workers older

55

than he. He set about to intentionally perform an active listening routine for various

people. He also realized that he needed more than one day’s practice actively

listening, so his work spanned several days while he practiced and used various

routines from his continuing research of reflecting back the communication he heard.

The routine of checking in, giving evidence of learning in their work, and relating

future work with assessment progressed until the end of the course. The group

members helped each other with resources and their learning, which was relevant to

the particular member’s need for learning. The group members became facilitators of

each others' learning at the chagrin of the professor who became more silent. It was

difficult to sit in silence and watch the learning event unfold. As a learner, I wanted to

jump into the conversation and share what I knew; however, the members needed to

share what they knew as reinforcement for their learning. To facilitate the facilitators

of learning became the position of the professor.

An action-learning technique was used to bring the group into a situation in

which leadership could be practiced in the small group. The goal was set to travel to

New York City and meet with successful business people who were alumni of the

students’ university. Air travel and lodging were administered by the professor, while

all other arrangements were set by the students. For example, the students knew the

budget and were responsible for maintaining it when meeting with alumni for lunch,

etc. They set the plans according to their stated objectives. The professor felt at the

mercy of the students in giving them control for the experience. The tension increased

within the professor when it was perceived that the students did not know what they

were doing in traveling within Manhattan on public transportation. They got confused

56

as many tourists do, and helping them was tempting; however, silent restraint reigned.

Suddenly, one of the students realized the solution. He exercised his leadership skills

and found the correct way for our travel. Rescuing the group from their dilemma

would have eliminated the learning opportunity for the group. The group really

showed their thanks to the professor in admiration for not jumping in to save them.

Like ice skating at Rockefeller Center late at night, the experience of traveling with

students in control of the situation was risky business; however, it was a vast learning

experience for each of the students. Each student used the New York experience as a

context for developing his leadership skills and learning more about himself.

In a debriefing time with the students about what they liked or disliked in the

experience, all agreed that they did not know what to expect, and that made them

nervous until they knew that they could trust their learning process. They commented

that previous learning situations did not prepare them to learn on their own or to feel

confident in doing so. They enjoyed collaborating to set the learning goals for the

course and collaborating to critique their own work of which they were proud. They

made an astute observation that future students would need to be screened for this

class because this learning experience was designed for autonomous learners. The

learners left this course knowing that they took the opportunity to be persistent,

initiative, resourceful, and desirous of learning in a university setting, which would be

the model to follow for their life of continuous learning. The professor was very

satisfied that each student did learn what they wanted to get out of the course and

much more.

57

Professors may utilize different learning processes but definitely want to play

an important role whether on stage or behind the scenes. Seven professors were

interviewed, their classes observed, and their autonomous learning students

interviewed for the purpose of understanding whether the professors used any

constructivist leadership techniques in working with autonomous learners. These

professors represent various undergraduate disciplines across the curriculum. For the

interviews, a list of questions was used. Yet, it was more important in this

phenomenological research to better understand each professor’s world in the

university; therefore, not all questions were asked verbatim on the prepared list.

Additional questions were asked to tease out the interviewees’ real life responses to

ideas in their environment. To provide anonymity, each interviewed professor's name

has been assigned an alphabetical letter.

Interviews with Seven Professors Concerning Learning

The interviews are presented as transcription from a tape recording. The intent

is to give a picture of the professor’s thinking as they speak about their interaction

with students and autonomous learners. Some of the transcription is not presented in a

polished, edited format because the editing for exact grammar would detract from

each professor’s authentic response.

Interview with Dr. Rick

Date: Thursday, February 9, 2006 Jim: One of the things that I am looking at is how undergraduate professors engage

students and especially students that we call our overachievers. That will be the ones

who are just persistent. They are much directed. They make very good decisions

58

about things. They are resourceful, and they have a real desire for education. How do

we really interact with those types of students? I am wondering, for you, if you could

tell me a little bit about what you feel all that means? We call this “autonomous

learning.” Does that ring true? Does it describe your students?

Dr. Rick: Well, I think it represents a percentage. I don't know what the percentage is

of the students. I would guess maybe one-fourth. It is hard to say. There are people

who are close to that. We have a good number who are moderately self-motivated and

focus on themselves, and they don't rely totally on doing what the prof tells them to

do and that is sufficient. There are some self-directed students. I think probably that,

of course, the problem in class is that you can have some of them and then others who

need a little bit more of the structure to tell them that this is when things are due and

this is what they have to do—the minimum amount of work that they have to do so

that they will do it. I guess it just might be nice to do it at perhaps graduate level

students. But I have a feeling that is probably true at all levels; maybe a little less so

the farther you go. You maybe find people are a little more self motivated. I wouldn't

know that.

As far as what do I do? I am trying to think of some specific things. It really would

vary, I think, from just anything that I would do in the class to promote some deeper

exploration—whether it is just raise questions and pointing them in the direction and

hoping that someone seizes the opportunity or ask them to bring something back in

the next class. It could be something relatively brief, something that could be used to

contribute to discussion or that sort of thing.

59

Jim: Great! Good. Let's stop here just a second. Just as kind of a nutshell, this is a big

question. What would you say your teaching philosophy is? What are you trying to

accomplish? What works the best?

Dr. Rick: I think, probably for me since social work is considered a professional

program and that students coming out of our program are eligible and should be

equipped to take the professional licensing exam and be capable of functioning as a

professional, I think that what I am considering is preparing them adequately for the

profession so it really in a sense is that social work is both a profession of knowledge,

as well as skills, as well as attitudes. A kind of belief system—kinds of things like

that because we are very value-oriented. I think that it is kind of putting that all

together and trying to shape them into somebody that has those various facets, so I

tend to be somebody who gives lots of information. I tend to be an information-giver.

That's kind of what intrigues me. I tend to lecture a little more than I probably should,

but to me, one of the things that I value is to give them stuff that I think will equip

them. I don't know if that is a philosophy comment or not, as far as teaching, but at

the same time, since we are so value-driven, we have to raise some of those

fundamental questions about their beliefs—their beliefs about minorities, their beliefs

about poverty, their beliefs about why people are dysfunctional. So that we can detect

things that might get in the way of their effectiveness with people and so in their

writing of papers and their discussion classes and stuff like that, we also want to find

if they're becoming personally and individually the kind of person who will function

well as a social worker because it is really not something that you can divorce from

60

your personal life very well. You have to. You can't pretend that you care about

somebody. You can't act like you believe somebody when you don't, when they are

telling you a story about their childhood or something like that. You have to be a

genuine enough person. I think those are qualities that I think other majors are

concerned about to some greater degree or lesser degree, but I think we do that a lot.

Jim: This is really intriguing to me because when you said about the information

piece and then maybe I should or shouldn't, I heard that you are also doing something

with learners with practicums. Is that to see maybe a little bit more what's cooking

inside students? Would you agree that the information is kind of an outward

understanding, but it needs to filter down to this inside realization in order to be the

authentic person?

Dr. Rick: You are asking the purpose of the practicum? Jim: Well, I guess—in a different way—how do you assess whether the person really

has those attitudes, that genuineness that you want?

Dr. Rick: Well, one way that we do in the practicum specifically and in some of our

other courses is that we have our students do a lot of journaling. We have them

journal all of their practicums every day. They have to journal and the general style of

journaling that I use in all of my classes and we use in our practicums is essentially

the student is asked to describe what happened, how they felt about it. What their

reactions were to it, and how it relates either to the field of social work or how it

relates to the material in the course or whatever, so it is kind of an integration piece

61

with taking what is going on in the field with what they've learned in textbooks or in

class discussions or lectures or something like that. So by especially looking at how

they describe the events and then how they describe their reactions to them, how they

felt: were they puzzled, angered, frustrated?—you can start to get a sense of whether

that student is internalizing, if they really are taking on not only the knowledge, but

also the beliefs that should be present in a good social worker. What it has to do with

you—I mentioned that social work is a highly value-laden profession because we

have a series of foundational values like the belief in the inherent worth and dignity

of the individual, belief in confidentiality, belief that people should be able to make as

many decisions about their lives as possible. In other words, giving them more

control over their lives beliefs in social justice and so on. Those are things that, you

know I mentioned earlier, a student can't really fake—a professional can't fake very

well. They can get away with it for a little while, but eventually it is going to seep

through. So that's one way that we assess that in the student journaling—through

discussions that we have sometimes, we do spend quite a little bit of time with our

students especially in their junior and senior year like on a senior trip to Indy Trail.

You know we are living with them; we are traveling in vans with them and doing

projects with them, so we actually get to see them out in the field. We are able to talk

to their field instructors in their practicums and get their assessment so that it is not

only what they reveal to their professors, but what they reveal—obviously their field

instructors are not outsiders, in a sense, because they are still part of that educational

endeavor. But at least they're a little bit more removed and sometimes students "let

their hair down" for them when they wouldn't necessarily for us.

62

Jim: So is this a way of giving students responsibility for their learning? Do students

have more control over their learning?

Dr. Rick: It is and actually that's one of the things that are going on in the profession,

and you know when we had talked briefly on the phone about using learning

contracts. That's one of the reasons we have gone to using learning contracts because

the field of social work is emphasizing more teaching students to be able to evaluate

their own practice. In other words, to be able to look at themselves and evaluate how

they are doing because social workers often work individually and independently.

They are out in the field by themselves. They are not always working as a part of a

team, and they have to be able to decide: "Did I handle that right or not? Was that a

good way of saying that, and what are the consequences of the choices that I made?”

So that even in our latest accreditation visit, which was 2 years ago or so, that was

one of the things that the site visitors were asking about was, "How do you teach your

students to evaluate their own practice?” And it's almost like in research—it's not like

field particularly, but it is like a single subject design in research where you are the

subject or you're evaluating the effectiveness of your intervention with a particular

family or particular person. So the idea of our learning contract then is to set up some

goals, mutually set them up with the field instructor—this is in our senior practicum

here—set up some goals that are as much as possible measurable so we can go with a

quantification if we can, measurable and clear so that at the end of the semester they

have to turn in—well, they turn in the learning contract at the beginning of the

semester and we just give them feedback about how they worded things and choices

63

they made as far as goals and everyone is going to be different because the

practicums are so very diverse. But at the end of the semester when they turn in the

same learning contract, now they add in their evaluation of how they actually did. So

if possible, they would be able to say I met this goal 70% of the time because they

have been keeping track of it. In other cases, it is just simply a deadline thing like by

March 15th I will have learned how to do this or I will have gotten in contact with

these people at this agency and gathered information on these certain programs.

Jim: What do you think and feel about students assessing their own work? Dr. Rick: I think it's a great idea because you know I think in most professions it

would be good. Some, you know, have a more formal hierarchy of supervision where

they have people over them who are evaluating their practice and social workers

certainly do too. But you know it seems to me that it really implies that the student

who is becoming a professional is capable and in a sense expected to be striving for

excellence and so regardless of what they are being told by other people, they can still

be saying, "Well, I did that well, but I could do better. Or I did that well, but I wonder

if there is another way, let's try a new approach to it." So just as kind of an aside, this

learning contract that I am referring to is part of a larger assignment that we would

give them which we call a time management assignment and what we ask them to do

is for the entire spring semester that they set a series of goals and objectives for all

areas of their lives, not just the practicum goals or agency goals, but goals such as

health, emotional health and physical health, so they might and this is really up to the

student. You know we are not telling them you must have a goal that says, you know,

64

I will eat 2,200 calories a day or something—if that's something that they think would

be valuable for them based on their knowledge of their health, then fine. If they want

to put in a goal that says I will exercise three times a week and then have some other

objectives there, strength training, endurance training, you know all those kinds of

things—that's really their prerogative as to what those goals are, but we want them to

set them up in a series of physical goals, emotional goals, relationship goals, how

often am I going to keep in touch with my family. What's happened with our students

is that they are still Taylor students, they are still seniors—most of them are living off

campus now although there are a few in the dorms—but now they are having to get

up and go to work at 7:00 in the morning. They can't stay up until 3:00 the night

before. Their life is changing, and we want them to learn how to set limits as to what

they can do and how they are also going to deal with the fact that they are becoming

partially removed from their peers because of this scheduling. Some of them actually

move. You know we have some of them living in Indianapolis who never sees their

friends, and so we want them to make sure that they have plans for staying on the

phone or email contact with their friends, their relatives. What about their spiritual

goals—what should they be doing? So that time management sign is the whole sign—

the learning contract is the portion that applies specifically to their practice area.

Jim: So those are learning goals? Dr. Rick: Yes, the learning contract and then the time management goals and then at

the end of the semester, they have to let us know how they did. We are not going to

grade them lower if they didn't exercise the way they planned to. We are going to

65

grade them low if they didn't write their goals so that they are measurable or they

didn't keep track of them and come up with a chart or something like that so that they

can actually give accurate feedback. So that's more than just evaluating your own

practices, evaluating your whole life.

Jim: What hindrances do you see in shifting more responsibility for learning to the

student—from the professor who wants to give a lot of information, to the student

that would like to learn more information? What hindrances do you see in the

transference of that responsibility?

Dr. Rick: I think probably there is somewhat a lack of standardization. There's more

variability. It's going to depend—some of them very clearly are going to take this

assignment more seriously than others will. They will be much more thoughtful about

the goals they set and maybe more conscientious about carrying them out. So that's

going to vary, and we have to kind of loosen our grip and say that's fine that we are

not controlling that any more because after all in 4 months we are not going to be

controlling that anyway. It is just happening a little sooner, and we still have some

partial involvement. So it is actually kind of like a halfway house into real life. So we

actually are hopeful about that in a sense that our students are transitioning a little

more gradually into life after college and maybe it's not quite as harsh of a transition,

and I think they probably feel more equipped to be there, not only in the professional

setting, but also within their own—if in fact that is what's happening. Now some of

them are still in the dorms; some are still living in their apartments, but now they are

working as professionals, and by the time they are done, most are being treated like

66

professionals at the agencies. Because essentially they are—you know, once they

have that diploma in their hand, they can be hired to do that work for money.

Jim: So do you have a number of students going on to graduate school? Dr. Rick: We do every year—a few—it really kind of varies. Probably—I don't know

if we have done any statistics or not, but eventually probably easily 60% to 70% of

our students will get graduate degrees—masters in social work. Some go directly and

some will go into practice for a few years and then go to grad school usually within

the first 5 years because then they are qualifying for advance placement, and they can

actually skip almost one year of grad school. Because in social work, the masters

degree is a 2-year degree, but the first year of masters program is essentially

equivalent to the senior year of undergrad, and if you go to a good accredited

undergrad school, you will get everything that you need for that first year of grad

school, so our students—most of them figure grad school within 5 years after

graduating can be done in 12 months.

Jim: So would you think that students would do better in graduate school because of

this practicum—because of the idea that you have them setting objectives and goals?

Do they actually carry that on or do you think it's something nice that is done for the

professor and after that . . .?

Dr. Rick: Yes, I think that probably they do—I do have to point out that in social

work, practicums are required. Every undergraduate school has to offer one. They

must offer one and it has to be a minimum of 400 hours. We actually have two—a

67

140-hour junior practicum and 480-hour senior practicum so our students are coming

out with 620 hours instead of the minimum of 400. But every school must do it.

That's part of the accreditation since social work is really what it is—it's working the

field that's just always been considered a part of social work education and when they

go to grad school, they are going to have practicums there as well so that they are

kind of indoctrinated to that early on.

Jim: Any idea about when you are teaching that maybe you want to integrate more

about this idea about the practicum into some special assignment or something like

that, that students would be responsible for? That they can actually set their own

learning objective?

Dr. Rick: You mean prior to starting the practicum? Jim: Yes. What are your thoughts and feelings on that? Dr. Rick: We actually have an assignment they learn as juniors. It used to be called a

problem-solving assignment, and it follows a particular model taught in one of our

textbooks. It is a certain model of problem-solving, and it involves the process of

assessment, and setting goals and implementation and evaluation of the success of the

goals and then the follow-up. It's taught to them primarily as a method of working

with clients—to work with the individual client and set goals together—you know—

what is our goal here? Our goal is to learn more parenting skills so that I don't abuse

my children any more. So it is the social worker along with the abusive parent who

would sit down and define—they would evaluate the problems—you know—why is

68

it that this parent is abusing the child. It's a possibility that they get frustrated. They

don't have good parenting skills. They don't know how to discipline—that kind of

thing, and they break it down into goals and objectives and action steps and

implementation and then go through and evaluate it and see how they are doing, and

of course, that may involve the law too because the Department of Protective Services

may be—Child Protective Services may be overseeing the process to make sure that

the parent makes appropriate progress so that they can get the children back. That

model of this problem-solving model now days—the politically correct term is Plan

Change Process. It is a strength-based term rather than problem-solving which

focuses on the negative—plan change is focusing on the strengths. But that model is

fairly similar to models that they often choose to use when they set up their goals and

objectives. They don't necessarily do all the steps, but they use that often in their

minds to think about what goals they should have and to make them measurable and

having certain dates that have to be met by and certain action steps that have to be

followed. So even though we teach it for a different reason, it often ends up being

something the students apply to the learning contract and the other goals they set for

themselves.

Jim: We are going to go a little bit deeper with this. Would you be willing to role-

model that—say with some class. Obviously you couldn't with a large class, but say a

small class where before the class actually meets, you would sit down and say there is

this problem, and I have an idea what I think you ought to learn, but let's set out some

goals and actually have them help you set the curriculum for a class. How do you feel

about that?

69

Dr. Rick: That would be kind of intriguing—as far as role modeling and I have been

in practice myself. I would point out that the class where they learn this plan change

process/problem solving process is not what I teach. They know better than I—(Ha!

Ha!) and you know as you bring that up, that reminds me that I am actually rewriting

one of my courses for next fall. It is one of our senior levels and kind of a capstone-

type course called, Human Behavior in the Social Environment, and we are

modifying it, and we are taking out a bunch of content and using a psychology class

that is already in existence to teach that part on life span development. Then we are

going to turn the course that I teach into more of a seminar style covering different

topics. We are probably going to do addictions and the whole continuum of use of

violence and oppression going from individual abuse—like child abuse or spouse

abuse—elder abuse to other kinds of style of oppressions like date rape and so on and

moving all the way up to the point of genocide and so on and so forth. Those are just

some of the topics I can cover, and it certainly would make sense as a possible

teaching approach to sit down with the students at the beginning of the module and

the unit to say okay, we are going to be talking about abuse and oppression and so

on—what do you want to learn? What have you wondered about that we could spend

some time on? It is actually very loosely set up because I'm going to have the students

doing a lot of researching and presenting in the class anyway. It would be very easy

to say okay, these are some things that the students in the class have chosen to cover,

so we need to get some of you to volunteer to cover them now and to go on and spend

a little time and do some research on it, so that is one setting that I thought of when

you were raising the question.

70

Jim: That's great! That is exactly what I was wondering. I was really investigating

students taking ownership, and I know when people own something, they usually take

better care of it out of self interest or they're more engaged. On the other hand, with

my own experience, I sometimes wonder—are they ready? Can I trust them to own

this? What would they do with it? Might they fail? Could I allow them to fail? Might

that reflect on me? Did that ring any bells for you? Or what are some of your

thoughts?

Dr. Rick: It probably will factor a lot more next fall when I am actually doing it.

Because I am somebody who worries a lot about making sure that we cover all the

material, that I do the right thing and the irony of it all is—how do I decide what it is

that needs to be covered? Often it's because the textbook says it needs to be covered

and as long as this author says so, they I figure that I've got to cover it. So I think I'm

changing there, becoming a little bit more flexible in that area because I know they

are going to forget 80% of it anyway really quickly, but I really think that especially

with the kind of class that I'm talking about there with the learning modules, that it

ought to be something they are going to find useful in their practice areas when they

go on. Often there are plenty of times when they would like some direction, and I

could probably teach them some things that I know, but they're going to go out and

learn some stuff that teach the rest of us—stuff—some of which I don't know or you

would be able to supplement.

Jim: Now how would you allow that to happen? Would you like to have that happen

before they graduate?

71

Dr. Rick: Oh yeah! Oh sure! Especially and see this is a senior class, so they are

about ready to fly the coop anyway! I would be much more comfortable doing that

with an upper division class anyway because even in freshmen and sophomores, there

are those people that you talked about at the beginning who are very goal-directed

and do stuff on their own, but a much larger percentage of the underclassmen,

freshmen and sophomores, don't know what they don't know and don't know how to

find that out so I think that they need some help to figure out what it is that they don't

know that we are going to study.

Jim: Do you think that I really need to help those that may have some difficulties,

because if I don't, we are going to leave them in our dust?

Dr. Rick: Sure. And I think that still allows for people who want to kind of move

ahead on their own. I don't think that would be a problem at all. It wouldn't bother

me. I would find that very interesting.

Jim: Have any of those people ever been annoying? Dr. Rick: Oh yeah! Jim: Tell me about that! Dr. Rick : You know occasionally they ask questions, and you are ignorant, and but

you don't want to appear ignorant, so you try to cover it up a little bit, and sometimes

my annoyance with them has to do with the fact that they end up not wanting to

disrupt things, but they want to follow their thread of interest and sometimes it's

72

profitable—not always—sometimes it's a wild goose chase, or it is a tangent that is

not going to be very helpful. So you kind of have to do a whole lot more—marking

boundaries and say that's a good idea, that's not such a good idea and sometimes just

the fact that they're so interested in something means more work for you. You know

they come in and say, "Well, how about this? Or what if we try this?" That's a good

idea; it just means more to do, and it's not always bad, but there is an economy of

time and class time and everything else. Yeah! It can be frustrating, and some of them

provide lots more benefits than others—they can get in the way—it really depends on

the person.

Jim: Would you consider: what was your favorite learning experience and with what

kind of facilitator, teacher? If you could think back. . . . In other words, what

structure?

Dr. Rick: I always have trouble picking a favorite or favorites that I liked—for me

personally, I think probably what made it favorite—part of it was just simply the fact

that it interested me as opposed to something that didn't interest me.

Jim: So you were allowed to learn something that interested you. Dr. Rick: Yeah—that it grabs you somehow. My background, by the way, is in

biology. That's what I came from before I made the switch to social work. And I

remember a seminar that we had. I think it was a seminar led by the head of the

department—kind of a wise old, highly-revered guy and it was just kind of ethical

issues in science—that was very intriguing. That was the discussion.

73

Jim: Now again, I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but what was it that was

enjoyable about that?

Dr. Rick: It was challenging, it was mind opening, and there were certainly other

times too. I remember also this was a class I took, called the Philosophy of Science

which was really good. it was taught by a philosophy prof., but it was in the sciences.

But I enjoyed some of the social science courses that I had. I also discovered that. . . .

I was a lab assistant one year, and I learned then that you learn a lot if you teach

people. I thought I knew things pretty well, and they I taught it, and I thought now I

really know this. That is, of course, an experience that I continue to have with college

teaching. I always learn better than the students do. Of course, you do it every year,

but that's kind of an interesting thing that essentially you learn by doing, or you learn

by teaching.

Jim: Is that part of why you have students do presentations and those kinds of things? Dr. Rick: Certainly. We have them do speeches on the sort of figures who are

significant to social welfare. In the practicum, we have them do speeches also. We

require a speech and that is really pretty wide open—they can go into the community

to do a speech—or talk about what their agency does—they give speeches about the

results of their research project and so on. Yes, we do an awful lot of projects of that

nature—they seem to work well with our students, and they resemble most closely the

kinds of things they will do later as professionals.

74

Jim: Thanks! The basic thing that I am looking for—a question that I keep asking is if

students are to be responsible for their learning, and I think it is part of the maturation

process that they do take that on. Why don't I see that happening more—why is that

not always occurring at the traditional universities—to pass on that responsibility? Is

it occurring in contract learning and in the practicum?

Dr. Rick: I think that students can't be expected to do that until they have some basic

knowledge. You really have to give them the foundation. You have to give the

guidelines, the limits, the purposes. That takes a little while. They have to have a few

courses—they have to work with the material a bit before they are able to set up their

goals. I guess maybe you could do it in a narrower sense when they are a little earlier

in the field and not give them as many choices but still put some responsibility on

them. But I don't think all students are ready for that and you know we need to get

them ready and there's always with some of our fields where we have accreditation

issues and so on. There is always that concern that, as I mentioned to you before, we

feel responsibility or burden to make sure that they get everything—that they get a

complete survey of the course. Did they get the definitions of all the correct—you

know—certain definitions of words and concepts and ideas and leaving that up to

students to find on their own or to rely on a student presentation to get for the rest of

the class what they need is sometimes a little bit iffy—kind of a hit and miss. We

think it is easier to do it ourselves rather than rely on somebody else to do it. In light

of the fact that a well-set-up program like that provides better learning for the

students is worth the trouble. I always make sure that I am using that as much as I

should.

75

Interview with Dr. Sam

Date: Friday, February 10, 2006 Jim: There are four things that identify an autonomous learner: they have a lot of

desire for their education, they are very resourceful, they are initiative, and they are

persistent. I am interested in all sorts of things that we might do to facilitate their

learning but also encourage other students to become more like that. Then overall, the

idea is to look for hindrances, for example, where efforts like contract learning have

gone awry or where you find various events that create a blockage to autonomous

learning. But for now could you summarize your teaching philosophy?

Dr. Sam: You mean in so far as this particular kind of student, or this particular kind

of class?

Jim: When you come to a class or when you encounter learners, what is your main

concern associated with your teaching philosophy?

Dr. Sam: Wow that really is very subject dependent. When I previously taught

physics, I think the teacher is relating a well-defined discipline for them. I would

think everybody that would do that feels very responsible to the discipline. In other

words, when you talk about conservation of angle momentum, you are talking about

something which is observed throughout nature, and when you share that and give

homework problems associated with it, there is a sense of a higher calling—not

necessarily even religious. When I teach writing, let's say I teach a WR course, I treat

that on a very high level just because of expression within our language and the

76

contracts that we have made in teaching WR courses. It is so different, Jim, when I

teach—ay, well say "Operations research" where we are trying to maximize profit

subject to constraints. There we are trying to use—let me take resources as well as

possible to make as much money or to spend as little money as possible and still meet

the demands of customers, satisfy stock holders, and the like. That is different than

physics. That is different than if I were asked to teach something which I am not

trained to teach, say Shakespeare or even music, something that is quite different. In

Basic Systems today you might continue to talk about which customers bought which

products for which reasons. How can we serve the needs of our business? In other

words, how can we generate the most profit, the most revenue, and/or the least cost so

that customers are satisfied? We give people the job; we have jobs that we have hired

people to do. This is very, very dependent; therefore on the subject matter itself, I am

trying to prepare kids for the world of work when I am teaching them in systems

courses. Clearly I care that they do well in graduate school, but it is very different and

when you are teaching something like physics or pure math there is a sense of

teaching that with the subject matter itself has the sense of purity to it and you are

trying to relate that as well. There is a sense of again, carrying on—like again I

mentioned angle momentum, conservation of energy, Euclidian geometry, teaching

calculus. Those you are trying to teach something to the student, but the concern is

not preparation for the world of work. It is knowing something for which you want

them to use but you also have a responsibility to the discipline. I feel passionately

about that.

77

Jim: So if I understand what you are saying, which one of these would you choose?

Would you say that the information, the knowledge base is extremely important to

teach? Or would you say that the learner's ability to think is very important; therefore,

the information is not as important? Which one of those would you choose?

Dr. Sam: I would not differentiate, quite frankly, I care more that—say the kids in

the systems classes, because I have so many business systems, so many management

systems and lots and lots of kids which is wonderful. I care that when they get out

there in the world of work that they do well. All right, and we prepare them to do

well. I don't consider that as just not as pure content. That is just different than math,

and that is different from writing, and that is different say from poetry, from music.

It's well, it's a profession and teaching them as far as the profession is concerned.

Jim: Have you any experience about giving control for learning to students that really

mean business? What was it?

Dr. Sam: Absolutely, I sure have, on a one-on-one basis. I never have done that

separate within a class of more than one. I have never differentiated one student from

the next in that regard. I have, again just the ones that I wrote down. Some examples:

in our operations research course which I have already mentioned, it is very important

for us to make sure that students are ready for that course when they come in. So I

have taught Applications in Operations Research three different times. We created the

course. It's just a 360 type course, but it has that name, and it goes onto their

transcript that way—preparing them for the course. So that's where I talk about

various things to help them identify areas they need to "bone up on," so it's a

78

preparation in addition to their needing all the prerequisites. Okay? Now that's one

thing. On another occasion I took a student past operations research who was going

into youth ministry, who was very interested in project management and was getting

ready to pursue his M.Div. When he came to me and said, "Could I follow up on

this?" I said, "You bet! Here's the course." He then took Microsoft Project and

sketched out the youth program at the church for the following, I think, year while he

was also going to be studying for his divinity degree. He was over in Dayton, and so

he had a job at a church, even though he was one of our business graduates by the

way but was going to be doing that as well as going to seminary. So that was another

case. That was very, very specific. Then I had a student who had a lot of experience,

finished in systems. I forgot what his major was, but he was what we would call a

non-traditional student who needed to take a course in the summer. I gave him a

booklet. I'm not sure if you've seen it. It's a pretty thick thing – of the course. It is

called, "Syllabus Etc." and it's got, not all you need to know, but a whole bunch of

stuff on our work, and I let him use some of that. We met once a week. It was self-

paced, and then I would give him the exams. He would turn in the homework, and we

would only go over things he thought he needed review in. In other words, he had a

bunch of knowledge coming in. That again was taught as that course. It could have

been in other settings. It would have been independent study. It probably had that 360

number, but we used that course title, but essentially it was self-paced, and I gave him

the same level of tests as everybody else, so it was not any different in that regard. I

did not give as many lectures to him. There was no need to do that because of his

previous work experience. So those are some examples.

79

Jim: That's wonderful. What areas would you consider giving up teaching control

with students? Any point there? Would you, for instance, not do as many lectures to

allow the students to do presentations and bring their learning into the classroom?

Dr. Sam: Yes. I have no trouble with that, no trouble at all. But again, it is subject

matter dependant. They've got to, for example, in a very mathematical course such as

that one, they have to demonstrate to me that they have that minimum knowledge,

otherwise I am shortchanging them. If you, for example, can't solve a set of

simultaneous equations, then you may need instruction. It takes labor, materials, and

machinery to make stuff; therefore, you have to solve simultaneous equations to do

that. If you show me that you can do that, then I can release you. Again, I've got

teaching software, two different kinds of software, which will help out. It's not done

by rote, and it's not drill and training kind of stuff. It's much more sophisticated than

that. But again, if I don't need to say it for those students, why should I have to? Now

the typical student wouldn't dare miss a minute of that class because they need to hear

this. The typical student needs to hear that a lot and needs to get the reinforcement, go

over the homework, have the new stuff introduced.

Jim: Have you ever had any students that were just so interested that they wanted to

know more and maybe that's even annoying to you as the professor? What do you do

with that student?

Dr. Sam: Yes! Honestly, it has never come to the point of being annoying. But I am

positive, over the years, that I have had students say I really want to stay with this. If I

80

take a course then, I know that I will stay on top of it, that I will really like it. I'm

certain I have given at least one such study, but I've not given this much recently, Jim,

because the Dean's office has said don't do many independent studies. This was never

something that I spent much time with at all. It was not really a load problem. Well.

here's an example, it's close enough so that I can give this. It's not precisely the same

thing but close enough. I had a student one time that I gave an assignment. This was

for a math practicum kind of thing that I am up to date in current best practices in

operations research. That was the broad kind of thing. She had something be canceled

right out from under her for her practicum—just boom, poof it went right away. And

so I created this for her. The math department blessed it and so forth. I was sorry that

she couldn't work in a business, but still we were able to have something and it was

very helpful to me. So she was speaking to me on the phone. She did this in Illinois,

close to Bloomington, and she said, "I'm really concerned that I'm going to have

enough to do." I said, "Well, why don't you just get on Google and type it in." That

afternoon she said I can't possibly end this by the end of the summer. I said, "I know,

you just do the best you can." Because I think she had 63 million hits, you know

something like that. So I just picked out some stuff and off she went. That's a case

where I was just fascinated by whatever she was going to come up with. I did give

some direction because I wanted it to be sharable in class. She comes back about

every Homecoming, is very, very loyal and things of that nature, and I know she was

just very appreciative of that. I know she just learned a bunch. And again, it was very

helpful to me. I don't want to talk about applications in a class unless I've made sure

81

that the applications are actually done in the year, say 2006, and were not just done in

the year 2001.

Jim: If professors own the information, and they own the classroom, what happens

when students want to take some of that ownership? Is there conflict? Do you think

you would welcome that?

Dr. Sam: No, I would not like that at all. I can probably remember one or two

instances, and I've been teaching since 1969 as a professor. I think that has happened

to me just a couple of times. I do not like questioning authority. I tell students right

off the bat when I know stuff and when I don't. For example, today in Human

Relations, I was quoting some things from the incredible story, "The Woman at the

Well," and I double checked with Win Corduan on exact phraseology, and he had

gotten on SacredText.com to double check himself because this is a little bit obscure.

The difference between see and perceive is used in the scripture. And obviously, he is

the incredible expert. I don't want the students in any to think I am an expert in that.

On the other hand, I've thought about it. I differentiate that point. I'm experienced in

teaching that course. My doctorate is not in that course though, and I know about OR

(operations research), and I know a lot about Expert Systems. So we want them to

learn and stuff, but I differentiate very, very clearly where I think I am a subject

matter expert or where I've got some experience in the subject matter and where I

would always defer to someone else. And in other cases, I don’t even know what best

practices are, and I would certainly never claim to know that, but the thing I think is

highly detrimental in a class is if they are interested in challenging the authority of the

82

professor, or you can question why we learn, why we are covering certain kinds of

material in a very proper way and then you can say why are we wasting our time with

this junk? That's not the way that student ought to ask, and I would not want that, and

I'm sure I would react very negatively, extremely negatively.

Jim: Some people think that with the internet explosion of available information, that

there's been a change in the professors' duties. The professor cannot be the sage-on-

the-stage anymore and that students can go and find the information. Would you

agree with that or disagree with that assumption? And if so, would you incorporate

students bringing information into the classroom and working with it on a different

level?

Dr. Sam: I can't remember the last time I taught a class that I did not invoke the

internet. In other words, this is just part of what I do. It's all the way from making

sure that our customers contract their orders, checking to see what we have in our

inventory, not inventory levels, but do we offer this kind of product? You happen to

be talking about an area that again is a very passionate area of mine because I believe

that an organization today owes it to their owners, their stockholders, their employees

to have the best website possible. Ten years ago, companies were just getting

websites, so I feel very much like that. I cannot imagine doing research today without

going to Google. I've never had a student set me up by finding out something on

Google, asking me a question, and making me look like a fool. I wouldn't want that.

What is different though is you don't go to the library as much and for those of us that

83

love the feel and smell of books, well; I guess I miss that a bit. I still go to our library

a lot; it is just that I go to Google even more.

Jim: Would you say that the textbook drives the curriculum of the course? Do you set

out different topics?

Dr. Sam: It is really simple for me. It depends upon the course. I deliberately in the

sophomore level systems course go by the textbook. I add to it a separate database to

help illustrate the stuff of the text. By the time they are seniors, the textbook is

secondary. I've got to have a textbook because I want them to have something to read,

but Jim, I even develop things differently than the textbook does. Not because it's not

good what they've got; I just happen to think there is a better way to do it. And in two

or three, quite frankly, everything I talk about in there, all the four big topics of

production, transportation, project management, and time horizon

production/inventory planning, for each of those I have a better methodology than the

textbook has. I have better software than the textbook has, so it is a teaching kind of

software, so I use the textbook as a help because I want the students to be able to read

stuff, but I could almost do without it. Now in the graduate level course, I picked up

cases from a database, and I just think it is better to have something to read rather

than always have it accessible on the screen, so I have chosen to have that printed.

But I'm not even sure if I have shown you my case book from my organizational

behavior course. It's wonderful, and I'm going to do the same thing for my next cohort

on Monday, and I'm ready to do it. You pick out cases from the big database,

Harvard-type cases, including folks from the ones from them, and you pick those out

84

and put those together, and then you introduce the subject matter, and read these, and

come with a business model. Read these and come up with a business model, read

these and analyze the website. So I go all the way from using it entirely for the

students' sake to hardly using it at all.

Jim: Would you see yourself setting up a seminar for a class where students are told

the general idea and maybe given an outline, then students coordinate with the

professor to set topics that they want to study? They set topics they want to learn, and

you walk into the classroom and say, "Okay, what do you want to learn?” And then

from your vast knowledge, you start pulling out things to do. Would you do that or is

that pretty sloppy teaching?

Dr. Sam: It depends. You can't do that in say Calculus I, II, III—you can't do that in

Calculus I since Calculus II depends on Calculus I. But we teach a course called

Current Literature in Computer Science, so the first half of the course I have, with the

help of others in the department, people who've got a PhD in computer science. Some

of the significant papers in computer science are then presented by the students. The

last half of the course, they pick current literature, and I have to literally approve it,

but they pick the current literature, and they make the presentations. Now what is so

funny is that they will talk about the old days. Well, I was the (professor) long before

the old days even got going, so I am pre-legacy! Pre-legacy! Can you believe that? So

that's fun. That is extremely enjoyable for me and the grading is if they communicate

well, then that's 100. In other words, I do not try to differentiate that this topic was

better than that topic.

85

Jim: Do you think that students have learned—by going out and doing the research—

by presenting that? Is there an amount of learning that has occurred, and would it be

even more than say other types of learning where it's lecture or not?

Dr. Sam: That's it, what I just talked about; it’s covered just as well by students as by

me. The thing is that they've got some direct connection with it. I require the rest of

the students to summarize what they do and turn in papers. Okay. And those papers

are just as good with these students picking out as me. I'm very fascinated with what

they find interesting and the papers that they select, but again, the subject matter

cannot be one that is a serial where the next course depends on what you learned in

this course. The main thing they're learning in this case, quite frankly, is process. It is

not as content oriented as say something like Calc I is necessary for Calc II kind of

stuff.

Jim: What about in the business systems area? Dr. Sam: This would be applied, say to our systems seminar. In this case, we bring in

extra speakers and in that again, I've got quite a lineup this spring. Wow! I’m very

pleased, but there, the students react to that subject matter. Now we could have the

students selecting subject matter for them to present. That's the parallel to what I

talked about in the computer science. We don't do that, but I certainly would feel

comfortable in doing it.

Jim: Don’t some of our students do research and give papers at conferences?

86

Dr. Sam: Absolutely. Yes. And that's more in the specific areas of computer science.

We have had some that could fit into the broad category of systems but it's really

more, quite frankly, because there is a professional society going along with computer

science. The systems professional societies are more in application and not as much

as in the specific. The man coming on Monday is from Ontario Systems. I didn't

invite him. He said, "I would love to come speak—may I?" Yes. The last person

coming from Kroger, "I would love to come speak." Yes. There's the case where

they're giving applications at their companies. I'm not sure what the Kroger

application will be, probably distribution systems, and the other will be how does the

consulting company work. But those are broader; the computer science ones tend to

be more specific subject matter such as data structures as opposed to application area.

Jim: How do we make our students more responsible for their learning? Dr. Sam: I'll tell you. We have the responsibility in the classes that we have to make

sure that they see that this is important for them. We've got a vehicle to motivate

them. Oh, I know that there are people that would say that, "We can't motivate them;

all we can do is create the atmosphere in which they can be motivated." I like to use

the phrase "Motivate them" to study, to do the stuff, to trust us. If I do this, this will

help me on the job; if I do this, this will help me in graduate school; or for that matter,

if I do this, this will help me learn this particular subject matter. I have a

responsibility to motivate them, and I can tell when it's working. I can tell when it's

not. I can get way too wrapped up in the PowerPoint slides and be talking to the

screen rather than to the students. That is an easy trap to fall into especially in

87

interterm when you have to race. Boy, just thinking about basic systems today, where

again virtually everybody in there is a management or accounting student—just to

hear their questions and see how interested they are. This is wonderful. Now again,

I've got to care, and I've got to know something about it, but if I didn't care that they

learned, then they—heavens—then again if I do nothing about it . . . Jan’s got these

wonderful finches upstairs, and I just love working with those birds, but I don't know

diddly squat about that. I mean this one guy talks a bunch, and I talk to him, and then

this afternoon, he needed to be, his feathers needed to be . . . well, I use the work

primped. He was primping, but birds need to do that, and he wasn't going to talk. So

he was doing that to himself, and they bump up against each other, and get somebody

else to do that to them as well. So what do I know about finches? So no matter how—

I mean I can motivate somebody to watch them, but if you don't know anything about

it . . . you've got to know something about it in order to motivate. You can get them to

watch the things, but you've got to go beyond just general interest.

Jim: Do you have any concrete ways that you motivate students? You said being the

expert and telling them how it will benefit them especially for the future motivates

students. Is there anything else that you've done?

Dr. Sam: I'll tell you what—just keeping in touch with the alumni and when we have

alumni come here. I got an email yesterday afternoon from Josh Dickinson. Do you

remember Josh Dickinson? He said he just got moved from Cost to Pricing. That's

great and so I figured he sent that to you guys probably too, to Felix, to me—that's

just fantastic! That's how you know you are doing something, when the grads send

88

stuff back to you. Now it is even more so when they say specifically, "I was able to

use this in order to do that. I remember applying the stuff from this course in this

particular situation that resulted in my being able to do this." Now the things I share

are the wonderful stories that I have told your freshman about the kid who goes out

and blows away the Stanford MBA analytical test making 100 on the pre-test for one

of the hardest MBA programs in the world, and they're known for their analytical

skills, and he makes 100! And he says every question is from your class. Well, you

know you're doing something right when that happens. And yet another kid goes into

a business and saves them $85 million the first year. $85 million! And he said it's just

the stuff we had gone through. So yes, there are also bound to be students that go out

and don't ever use that particular thing. They don't send me an email saying, "Thank

you so much," but I've never used it. I don't guess I'd get that email and there are

bound to be students that say take an operations research course that just don't go out

and use that specific information. Now quite a few will email and say, you know, I

got a whole bunch out of it. I haven't used it, but it was the process. It was more the

process of learning rather than the content. And of course, that's just great! That

always makes you feel good. So that's the way I’d answer that question from you.

That's how you know, but to me it's success later on because I can consistently say

that this is going to make so much more sense to you on the job. And so many

students will tell me that either at Homecoming or by email or something. Yes, that is

really the way it was. Jonathan from our own faculty is an example. He thought when

he took Human Relations, well, I'll never use this stuff, but he said when he was in

graduate school, he found himself saying I learned that in Human Relations.

89

Jim: People have learning moments; they have learning times that they are interested

in a learning project about something that they don't know much about, maybe

finches. Do you have these learning experiences? Do you think students have those,

and would you give students credit for experiential learning? You might say, “Well,

that sounds like an independent study,” but I'm saying something that is a little more

student self-directed. What do you think about that?

Dr. Sam: Well, I think it's wonderful. I know that does happen. I don't know how you

blend it into a particular class. I've never done that as far as an individual class. We

present at the first: Here's the syllabus. This is what it takes to make the grade, and I

don't have a single class, that is, unless I'm ill, that I don’t know what I'm going to do

every day. The experiential exercise is some of those I just make up at the last but

content-wise, I know what I'm going to do April 30th. I've been doing it so long. I

know how to do that. Now the examples will be that morning, what did Ford do? If

today were an OR [operations research] day, we would talk about the fact that we just

blew away the balance of trade; it was just horrible last year. The balance of trade set

an all-time record and blew away the previous record. Well, you've got to talk about

that in class when it comes up. But that's an example or that would go along with the

structure of what I'm already planning on doing so when the student has this as part of

that kind of class, I don’t let anything that is a serendipitous sort of thing. I would like

for it to occur, but since it would go against the structure of the class, I can't say that I

have ever let that happen.

90

Jim: You probably already know, because this is your field, some people are saying,

on-line universities will eventually eat up all of the small private schools because the

pay for a professor becomes competitive and expensive. What about the real learning

kind of methodology that occurs with the student that is learning online? Do you

think there is much value there? Do you think professors will be replaced if there are

other conduits of information, and it becomes competitive? Could we ask your

thoughts about that?

Dr. Sam: We asked the students with the last MBA cohort about stuff. What they talk

about with me is how much fun I am. Well, that is not online! And the fact that I

showed these pictures in class going around the Indianapolis 500 track . . . Now what

in the world did that have to do with the class? I was giving an illustration, and so I

had me driving my car on the track with me taking pictures of me driving. No,

because you don't go any faster than 30 miles an hour and these cameras cost $11.95.

But that’s it. They constantly say that. When I went to the graduation and sat with one

young man from North Carolina, he just wanted to tell them what a fun guy I was

because of all this stuff at the track. Now, did he talk about how the website drove the

business model? Not one smidge. That's what the grade respects. But I think you take

away the kind of learning that does happen in the classroom that you augment with

the fun stuff. The current assignment I have with our MBA students, their third

assignment, deals with comparing websites for automotive—well, automotive

websites. And then what experiences have they had buying a car? In a couple of

weeks, I will meet with them, and we'll talk about that, and they will remember, I

hope, if they are like the two previous groups. Although the two previous groups were

91

the older MBA students, they'll remember the bad times trying to get a car or the

good times trying to get a car, how the website helped. Maybe it hindered; probably it

was irrelevant in most of the cases. But the discussion will bring that out, and I don't

care how much chatting you can have with Blackboard or whatever tool you use, it's

still, nevertheless, very limited. I believe that it is, depending upon the subject matter,

it is absolutely necessary to meet face-to-face. Now the reason I say, depending on

the subject matter, back in the 60's I participated in a study that looked at distance

learning. Some classes just worked great, and others it worked horrible! With

mathematical ones, it's terrible because even though you've got all kinds of cameras,

and you're writing things down, you just can't ask the prof the questions: "Now I'm

sorry I didn't understand that." It's just not easy enough. I don't care how many

cameras you've got and how many microphones that you have. There is just a natural

reluctance, and you lose that moment because the prof continues to sort of plunge

ahead.

Jim: But also during that time, remember when programmed learning was coming out

through the use of computers? Can the computer provide for more learning?

Dr. Sam: Yes, now what I had the privilege of doing is that I've had some consulting

experience in this case. The State of Indiana hired me two different years to look at

Ivy Tech, and one year they were looking at what they discovered, that a lot of Ivy

Tech students came without an 8th grade level of reading. They graduated from high

school, but were not at the 8th grade level. That says something, of course, about the

high schools, but the guys that were teaching diesel repair and air conditioning and

92

the stuff that you need to know if you're going to go into that business, they were

finding that they couldn't teach that because the kids couldn't read the books because

they were written at the 8th grade level. So they gave some pretests to all the students,

then if they didn't, of if they couldn't do well, then they had some computer learning

on that drill and practice. Definitely, some of that drill and practice is very good and

some of it is very limited. It depended upon the subject matter. Give the question.

Answer it. If you get so many right, anything that links itself to drill and practice. The

trivial example would be learning the multiplication tables, conjugating verbs,

something of that nature. On the other hand, they also had to have math classes that

were just remedial in nature, whether there was enough of an interaction between the

professor and the student so that the professor could ask the question, check to see

what was really happening and then him or her set this down. So I have definitely

seen that used, in my opinion, very successfully in the State of Indiana, and that was

in the mid-80's. So, I do want to give credit now, back in the 60's when distance

learning did work. I realize that is not quite the same as online, but it has, clearly has

some parallels, and when there was a seminar and the speaker was just going to

speak, and you probably weren't going to ask questions anyway. In other words, you

would just travel, go into the room, and take some notes, leave. To watch that on

television, where you are in the studio 5 miles away rather than 50 miles away or

you're watching it over the internet, because I watch things like that on the internet.

Wow! That's great! I didn't have to do the traveling. It is limited if the nature of the

presentation and the subject matter is such that requires that interaction, then it is

necessarily limited in terms of distance learning and online work. If you just have

93

somebody spouting, saying things, if I'm just going to present stuff, something, then

whether somebody's in the same room watching me on TV, or watching me on the

internet really doesn't make that much difference.

Jim: Now, I have to ask you what if a student could choose a required lecture on an

iPod: yours, a person at Stanford, and another one at Harvard? Is there a market

demand for that kind of information? What do you feel and think about that? What is

your advice?

Dr. Sam: Well, you've picked places that I have enormous respect for. If I could get

somebody to talk from a school in Indiana, with the same subject matter as somebody

from Stanford and somebody from Harvard, you've narrowed it down to two very

quickly.

Jim: But the professor at Taylor is an expert just as well as the other professors! Dr. Sam: Now, I know a bunch of stuff, but I also have immense respect for those

places and their well-deserved reputations. I like what I do, in other words, I like the

way I present stuff. I think it's very valuable, and I have a lot of confidence in what

I'm doing. But if it's a case of our marketing things, well, I love our MBA. It is a

niche market, in other words, we are not aiming it at everybody. We are only aiming

it at a small group and I, because I've been asked by other schools, one in particular,

no more than one, anyway, people actually pay me money, and they’re are doing

niche programs as well, and I really like what they're doing too.

94

Jim: Here's what I was getting at. It's almost like saying there are three different

books that you can read about this subject. There are three different experiences that

you could have. So might the person say okay, from which one would I learn the

most? Is the information also important, or is it the learning that is really important in

a competitive market environment, and is it helping that student to learn the

information, not necessarily just the information itself.

Dr. Sam: Yes. Jim: Is learning knowledge like giving a person a fish or is it teaching a person to

fish?

Dr. Sam: If you hadn't used such stark references, and again, I've got close buddies at

Harvard. They are really, really good. But no I understand now, what you're getting

at. I think, to be blunt, there are times in which you need to give somebody a fish and

sometimes a need to give somebody a fishing pole. In the case of what I teach, the

times in which somebody needs to say a word processor as opposed to a piece of

software in which they would write their own word processor. You know, "I need a

word processor to do this paper" kind of stuff where "I don't care about writing the

code." Now I have been in businesses themselves that don't care. I mean I need an

already written thing, because it's going to do what I need to do, so there is that

limiting. But I'll tell you, tonight we will eat out and last night, I ate out. Quite

frankly, if we could eat out the rest of our lives, that would be wonderful.

95

Jim: What if everyone ate out and no one knew how to cook? What if there are no

restaurants?

Dr. Sam: Fortunately, the last time I was given a Harris poll, I'm on their list, they

had me doing it for somebody, and they kept on asking, "Do you care if something is

homemade?" Well, every answer I gave was 1 out of 10, and then they asked, "Why

did you answer as you did?" I said, “Well, I don't want it homemade. I want it to taste

like a professional made it. To me, homemade is just unimportant. Well obviously,

other people really care, and they actually advertise, "Our food tastes homemade."

Well, I'm not going there. I'm not going to go to your restaurant for crying out loud. I

can microwave. Anyway, you can see what I'm getting at. I think that we need to have

this combination of classes where, in writing again, we teach the student how to

write. And hopefully, when they leave here, they can use writing as a tool. But in

other cases, we have given them something already written. Let me talk about

something that is especially precious in my life, Les Miserable. Wow! Now there is a

work! I'm not going to write like Victor Hugo. I can't make sentences that sound like

that. I can't make characters so alive. I can't come up with a plot. But boy, I can read

it and appreciate the daylights out of what he did. I can't create Jean Val Jean. Yeah,

for Jean Val Jean! But it's the difference between a tool and an already completed

thing that I can appreciate and then understand or at least study its role in Western

civilization, well, its role in just civilization.

Jim: And maybe there's quite a bit to learn from each of those various characters. Dr. Sam: Absolutely.

96

Jim: Our time is just about up, and I need to ask you one more thing. In an era when it

seems that students have a lot of market power—where they choose to go to school,

and the kinds of methods that they are going to be using to learn—do you foresee an

emphasis shifting away from the kind of rote learning, and giving more credence to

autonomous learners?

Dr. Sam: Actually, I have two very different things. First of all, what we did this year

in Colleagues College really matches what I see and what Norma sees. We definitely

have a more consumer-driven carry this to the extreme. I should determine whether I

even take a writing course or not. On the other hand, there is not a course that I teach

in which I do not have in the syllabus, on the screen, "work together.” Now you can't

do that in certain classes, and you absolutely have to do that in others: work together.

Now you can help students.

Jim: Work in collaboration? Is that what you are talking about? Dr. Sam: Yes, absolutely, because they are going to work in a group when they

graduate, period. But, you don't hire a group, you hire individuals and if. . . . The

examples I really like to give are in accounting. If you hire an accountant and then

that accountant does accounting and also represents the accounting function when

you try to figure out how to better process orders or study quality or do the reworking

of the warranty contracts or whatever, you've got to learn both. You have to learn as

an individual, working as an individual and the learning in a group as well as working

in a group and we, in our area in particular, really hit on the group stuff: the group

97

project and that matches our disciplines. But when you are learning how to write a

sentence, and I am so blessed to have the writing teachers that I did, learning how to

write a sentence has to be an individual thing. Now the prof can help and help and

help, but that's not a group deal. You've got to learn how to do that individually.

Jim: What about the goal-oriented major? Did the student work to set up that

curriculum? Did you set it up?

Dr. Sam: Yes, I helped him. I fine tuned it. I helped it through the committee

structure and there were questions about it in terms of graduate school—I forgot

where he went to graduate school—but it was a power one. But I am very, very

pleased—that was very personal. The second one was not quite as fancy and that one

was—Taylor did not have any kind of justice degree. He ended up taking some

systems stuff and some sociology courses and ended up being head—he graduated

with that and was—and immediately became head of security at General Motors. At

the big plant—just kaboom, went into it—he was a little bit older and had some

experience. But wow! Just immediately a very prestigious job and at that time that

was the most efficient of all the GM plants in the world.

Jim: Regarding the goal-oriented major, students were able to put together the classes

that they needed here at Taylor, but in a unique way that didn't exist before?

Dr. Sam: Correct. Jim: Would you ever agree to a kind of curriculum that was made up mostly of

independent studies?

98

Dr. Sam: There's got to be some limit and whatever we have in that North Central—if

North Central's got some well thought out reason why there's a limit, then I would

easily defer to those. These are really restricted—they're really limited. There was one

that really made sense for him and I forgot whether GM had committed ahead of time

that if he did this, they would give him the job—I think he still had to compete for it,

but they really liked what we had come up with. And again, I want to give him credit

—I played a role and I was the sponsor. And then the last one has been biostatistics—

there is another phrase, it's not biostatistics, but it's putting together computers and

biology. And so we have a student that we did that. It worked out very well. He

was—Wow! Did he have a powerhouse internship at University of Minnesota which

has—they actually offer that degree and he did very well there. He actually turned

down an offer from Georgia Tech which had—a goal-oriented—and it was in that

bioinformatics, that's what it is. He was accepted to work on his PhD and has now

changed it and is working on his M.D. degree, but where that is one of the specialties

there. Wow. That's three cases, very much touching on what you said. One to prepare

somebody for graduate school, one to prepare somebody for graduate/medical school

and the other for a very specific, but very significant job and very definitely

individually—I just wanted to emphasize—that may be of help.

Interview with Dr. Jane

February 13, 2006 Jim: What is your teaching philosophy?

99

Dr. Jane: Okay, so modeling enthusiasm. You know I would—you know we come

back together for our discussion and as somebody sharing, I would show my interest.

I mean, I am genuinely interested and I would say, "Oh, that's new to me, I didn't

know that" or I would say or "That makes me think of something else," you know. I

would point out—hopefully, as the teacher, if I had these ten students who have gone

off and done ten different little projects of their own and we come back, I would have

some inkling of what each one of them has done. They would have come in to check

in with me as they've worked. So when it was time for discussion and debriefing and

all of that, I would say, you know, “Jim, there is something about your project that

links really closely to what Mary worked on, and so I would like you to tell us about

this part of your project.” Just begin there and I would have you tell, and then I would

look to Mary—or if she wasn't picking up on where I saw the connection, I'd say,

“Mary, I need you to talk about—I saw that as connecting back to your such and such

—of your project.” And I think I would begin to point out some of those things. I

guess you are talking about kids who are—whatever you want to call them,

educationally disadvantaged, really at risk, you know, come to school with some

great deficits; I truly believe that people are just naturally curious. They're naturally

interested in learning. That they will find, "Oh, wow, I didn't know that! That's cool!"

I mean I think we find learning interesting. We like to expand what we know and I

would just tap into that.

Jim: What are the hindrances then to helping those people?

100

Dr. Jane: Well, I was thinking while you were posing the question that just as a result

of having allowed, in our hypothetical situation here, these ten senior seminar

students to go off to pick their own topic, to go off in a direction and do their own

thing, come back and report about it—that you have already given them the means or

the reason to be enthusiastic about what it is they were supposed to do because they

have an investment in it. "This is interesting to me. I got to pick the topic. She's

allowing me the freedom to do whatever I want—in terms of whether that means

looking up in books or on the internet or interviewing somebody or writing about my

personal experience because I have had a lot of interesting things that go on."

Jim: What kind of student wants to do that? Very curious ones? And it's like there are

certain hindrances for those people that they are going to experience, such as an all

lecture class.

Dr. Jane: Oh, yeah. Jim: What hindrances have you experienced or do you see that kind of puts a

roadblock in front of these kinds of people?

Dr. Jane: Yeah. [Pause] Hum—I think this is the sort of thing you are getting at.

When students are not given the—when they find themselves in a classroom situation

where a teacher or the prof presumes that nobody knows anything about the topic—so

somebody who has a different take going into the education situation— where I just

said I believe everybody brings something—no matter what the topic that I would

throw out—I could find something that you know about that—you know—just given

101

enough hints or just given enough of a description; you go, "Oh yeah, I have seen

that!" But I do think, unfortunately, there are some educators out there that think

everything they speak and lecture is brand new knowledge to somebody, and so

they're insisting that everybody do the same—master the same rudimentary body of

knowledge when it really is very rudimentary to some people. It might be like

presuming that you are speaking to a class who has never ventured beyond Grant

County, and you're telling them about the great wide world out there. Well, lo and

behold, you know, you have an MK from Papua, New Guinea, who has lived in the

jungle all their life and is better at New Guinean, whatever they speak, than they are

in English. So that kind of thing.

Jim: I was thinking about—do behavioralist’s routines tend to shut down curiosity,

and what do we need to be careful about in that kind of instruction?

Dr. Jane: That's right. And some people, you know, it may take them only—if I'm

expecting them to memorize this list of terms and their definitions for the test coming

up in a couple of weeks—you may have so much background knowledge and

experience in the area that it is going to only take you an hour of studying, and you

are going to ace the test. Other people, it's going to take them 5, 10 hours and

probably try the retake test, and maybe they will only get a 70% because of where

they began—with that.

Jim: Now I am back to the individual instruction—do we really learn to say, "Hey,

this will only take you a certain amount of time, and you won't have to be bored the

102

rest of the time while this other person takes a longer time, so that I will have to stick

with them?”

Dr. Jane: That's right. Although I also cringe when I hear students saying, "I wish I

didn't even have to be here for this week of lecture, there's nothing I can learn from

this." Well there is you know, and if nothing else, I might—especially if I hear you

saying that—I might assign you to one of those lowest achieving or least experienced

sort of students to be the tutor, because there is so much you are going to learn if you

are going to have to teach it.

Jim: The peer relationship? Dr. Jane: That's right, and just in trying to get an idea across you think you know

everything—what it is about traveling the world, or living in another culture will—

then explain it to somebody who has never left the town limits of Upland. Can you

convey to them in any way, and you are going to learn a lot about—okay, yeah I have

the knowledge—my own understanding of what it's like to live in Papua, New

Guinea, but to help a townie to understand what that's like, that would be a new

challenge in and of itself.

Jim: We have this new discussion and I asked about this idea, constructivism, and

you said, “Oh, I know it, but I don't use it in my classroom.” Why not? It is not a

value kind of thing; I just want to think—why?

Dr. Jane: Um, well I guess—there are times when I do and there're times when I

don't. I would say that Ed Psych is one of those classes where—oh, percentage-

103

wise—if would come up with a percentage—across the semester we spend 30% of

our time engaged in constructivist approaches to learning. We spend the other 70% of

our time doing something else. I guess I would go back to the nature of the goals of

that course—the kind of knowledge that it is. Even when we talk about various

instructional approaches in the classroom, you know.

Jim: I don't want to put words in your mouth. Is it much more difficult to use that—it

would take an inordinate amount of time to use it?

Dr. Jane: No, I wouldn't say that so much—that is true sometimes, but—let me think

of an example if I can—okay, an example is not coming to me—yeah, and maybe I

can think of one. We spend up until midterm doing very much presentation of

information, multiple choice kind of testing and like I said, after midterm is when we

are doing this whole segment in Ed Psych on different instructional approaches and

the assessment there is for them to put together a lesson plan—anything they want to,

with some parameters—use three instructional approaches and then on paper, do the

little show and tell thing where you explain to me why you did what you did and

demonstrate that it illustrates these three different approaches. That is very

constructivist—that whole month-long time that we spend. And the sorts of learning

that they are engaged in is very much constructivist sorts of approaches. Now we

could not do that stuff with the lesson plan, with the instructional approaches had we

not spent time—not nearly as successfully, some kids could, without the initial

introduction of 6 weeks of the learning theories. Here are the developmental stages;

here are the learning styles. If you've got an auditory person, you can't give them all

104

pencil and paper worksheets. You've got to come up with some creative ways of

tapping into their auditory skills. I mean, if these kids all have a tutee, and so they

tutor throughout the semester. Well, if you're going to do spelling words with an

auditory learner, are you going to have them write their spelling words 50 times

apiece? No! You know, but should they close their eyes and spell them aloud and clap

while they're doing it? Sure, that'd be really affective. But forget the pencil and paper.

Well, we talk about—they sort of learn in a much more direct memorization sort of

sense, that kind of thing. Introductory information—then once we have just that

knowledge that we, I mean, think of Bloom’s Taxonomy. You know, you've really

got to begin at the first level. Once you get some facts down, then we're going to

check your comprehension and then we can begin to apply—now not always would

you go in that sequence, but I really think the constructivist methods are tapping into

your—analyze, synthesize, evaluate, apply—and if you possess none of the

knowledge and comprehension, you're not going to be nearly as successful—you're

efficiently—do you know what I'm trying to say? All of that other stuff—and so,

yeah, the course is really—it sort of moves along on the progression. You know,

we're just studying those basic factual kinds of things to begin with and then we can

move on and talk about—Okay, now that we know all these different ways that

learners learn and places where they get hung up and that sort of thing, or if they

bring with them to school, umm . . . a lack of experience—they've never gone on a

field trip, a family vacation; they don't have somebody at home to assist them with

homework at night, um . . . they don't have a good night sleep or any breakfast to eat

or a coat to wear in the winter, then what can I—what kinds of things could I do to

105

help me with their learning needs? Umm . . . that kind of stuff, or kids with different

learning styles—well, what are some various ways that I can teach the grammar in

this unit—um, helping the visual kids, helping the auditory kids, helping the hands on

kids, helping the ones who like to learn individually, helping the ones who thrive on

group discussion, um. Now, you know, go to it! Illustrate some of that in the lesson

of your choosing. And that is very constructive. So, that's what I mean in relation to

the kinds of knowledge or information on learning at hand. If there're some facts to be

mastered, you don't want people reinventing the wheel. You know, that kind of thing.

Pass that information on.

Interview with Dr. Amy

Date: Monday, February 13, 2006 Jim: I chose you because I've heard from students how you interact with them to get

the best performances, the best learning. I know that you hold them accountable for

certain things. I don't see that model necessarily in other parts of the university, and

so basically, I am interested in how we can get the learner to take responsibility for

their learning. Sometimes they're not ready, sometimes they are ready, sometimes

they're ahead of us and so you have already been teaching for some time, you've

demonstrated this. You were one of my top candidates. I was thrilled that you said

"yes" seriously, because you have done so well with taking the whole program to a

higher level.

Dr. Amy: Oh thank you, Jim, you are so complimentary. Are you—are we talking

mostly about the choral ensembles?

106

Jim: Well, could you talk about anything that has to do with making students more

responsible for their learning in your courses?

Dr. Amy: Okay, how to make this learner accountable or ready to learn. Jim: To give them more responsibility, so for instance, we have this term called

autonomous learners. I don't know, does that term ring a bell? It doesn't necessarily

need to, but does that ring a bell with you?

Dr. Amy: That I've heard it or just, you know? Jim: It usually means that learners exhibit four things: that they are very intentional

about their learning, that they are very resourceful, they're persistent, and they have a

strong desire for learning. That kind of student is usually our top kind of student

because they are very aggressive and, what I want to say is, is there some hindrance

sometimes in what we want to do with them? What are some things that can happen?

I will lead you through a lot of this, and let's just start out with your teaching

philosophy when you interact with learners. What is it that you feel so very important

or is at the core of your teaching philosophy?

Dr. Amy: Oh my, Jim, let me, um—all right. I am thinking, okay, let me go—okay—

General Education courses, I am trying to—I mean and a teaching philosophy—it's

all you know for us we're tied up with the faith and learning. So that's all in my focus

and that's everything and trying to model that interaction that as a Christian, we know

is a right way to interact with the student. And start with—I'd say a premise for me—

107

like in the choral ensembles. I start from the point where everybody wants to do a

good job. Everybody—I mean—who wants to fail? I mean who—so then as far as

teaching—I would say that in all of my interactions with the students I'm trying to

help them be successful because they want to be successful. And then in General

Education courses, I've got to use a whole bunch of different teaching

techniques/styles to go with the different kinds of learners. Those learners who just

want to hear it and read it and those students who want to handle it and experience it

and sing it rather than just read about. So I'm trying to start from that, that everybody

wants to do a good job, and then in the accountability, like with those General

Education courses, that's why I give a quiz every day. I try to keep everybody

together, and I teach an 8:00 General Education course. So they're going to wander in.

So if the quiz is every day at 8:00, and it's 10 points, and it's easy reading, and if they

show up with that every single day, they'll get an A. And if they get that material and

then I choose because I think the music will stay in their ears longer—then that

becomes the cumulative. At the end, the final is on all of this listening that— they've

got to keep it going through their ears so they can begin identifying these different

styles, so I am just trying to keep everybody together, and they are all accountable for

they're up in front of each other; so I'm trying to also help them with their skills of—

presenting to the class, of being prepared, and so they present some of this material

that then becomes the cumulative. So they have really got to pay attention to what

their peers say because they have been assigned two terms that are going to be on the

final, and so they have got to pay attention and they've got to do a presentation with

108

their computer and Power Point that illustrates those things because then it's on the

final. You see—so I'm trying to keep us all together.

Jim: Why don't you just lecture the whole time? Why do you allow them to present? Dr. Amy: Well, I gear it to—to the General Education courses. It's 8:00 and they

come in—they come in tired, so I've got to have for that kind of teaching—I've got to

have music going, I've got to have—it's like some of those classes that they teach in

the doctoral—or in some of the classes of just basic teaching techniques where you're

even graded on "how many different techniques do you use in a 15 minute period?"

You know—so that—I took that class and that stays with me whether it's—here I am

passing out a paper. I'm holding up a book. I'm playing some music. I'm walking. I'm

having a student walk to the chalkboard. I'm having—uh, they've got a sign in over

here. I might put coffee on over here. They might have—a student comes up and then

gives a presentation and then I go—maybe I lecture, so-to-speak, for 10 minutes. So it

becomes impossible and I—I've got the drums going and the—it becomes impossible

to fade out. You know the quiz starts the class and then we grade and then—and then

that quiz becomes a take off in my lecturing. So I even have them turn the quiz over

and I'll show a movie clip that illustrates something they did on the quiz.

Jim: I'm so glad you shared this because some professors would be very nervous

about letting students present something. What might you notice about them? If

you're actually using it for the technique. . .

109

Dr. Amy: Yes. Because then,—and it's how we set it up. I say—I'm giving them a

music term. They've got to go research it, and they've got to try to understand it.

They've got to bring in a piece of music that illustrates that concept to the class—you

know? But there's always the understanding—they're not musicians. They might get

it wrong. They might get meaning. They might say that okay, they've got the term

"additive meter." And so then they've got to understand it, present it to the class, find

some music in their—in their listening, and then as we all listen—oh, that maybe isn't

quite additive meter —this—you know, so we leave room for dialogue and I—they

know that it's really a joint presentation. You see what I am saying?

Jim: Okay, tell me more about this. Dr. Amy: Yes, meaning that I might interject something else if they've got the term

“octave” and they present something, and they've got something else. I might also

have a clip that I put in on the heels of that or, "Oh, you had the term

‘countermelody.’ Well, that's—maybe that's close but now this example. . ." and so it

becomes interactive and then they—then some even have to go back and do a little bit

further work on it just to bring in a—maybe a better example. At the beginning of the

presentation they speak about themselves and their experience with art and their faith

and they then speak to the class—um, and talk about it, so we get to know them and

that this presentation becomes their moment. You know, so it's doing quite a few

things rather than just meeting learning objectives. It's—-they've got to see if they can

make a connection with that faith and the art as well—and so we talk about it and um,

I ask questions. The class asks questions—so that's how it becomes interactive.

110

Jim: This sounds like maybe a safe environment. What if the student doesn't get it

quite right?

Dr. Amy: That's right. Or they are free to email me and say, "I don't understand this

term." Oh—then I can help them, and I can say, "Very difficult example to bring in.

I'll bring the example in. You present the material and maybe some definitions and

some—some of the examples that you find on the internet." You know—and then I'll

bring in some actual written music that will illustrate that. So it's all about helping the

learner then getting that material. We do whatever we can to help them get that

concept.

Jim: So is your teaching learner-centered? Or is it information-centered? Dr. Amy: Oh, the learner has to get it. You know, I would have them come back the

next day with a different example. But you're right Jim, it's got to be a safe

environment, and they know that. They know some are hearing these words for the

first time so they're going to give it a stab. They're going to give it a try, and

definitely they can get the—the stuff of it. But if they can't quite get the right

example, then we work together on that. So it is—when they leave the class to have a

great base—hey might have a hundred plus terms that they can apply to the music

that they hear—music and the art. It's terms that they will use. That's the stuff of the

music—but then we do everything we can to help them get that music because they're

bringing in examples from their personal libraries. You know—"Oh, that's double

meter, yeah, I like this melody and I . . . "—and then rather than just saying, "Well,

111

it's just an awesome melody." Well no, they can talk about if it's this or that and say I

like that; it's got this disjunctive part or it's conjunct or it's um—the stepwise motion.

It gives them words to use what they really already know. So it's a lot of material but

we're trying to make that—can it be equal I wonder? The learner has got to get this

stuff, and they see they've got to be there—they've got to be in class you know.

Jim: Let's shift just a little bit to the chorale because I know from what I've heard is

that you make each person responsible for something.

Dr. Amy: Right. Jim: How did you come up with this? And does it work, and when does it not work? Dr. Amy: Oh, it works. Every—every student has a title—that could be our image

consultant; it could be our caterer—that's their title, and then they get all our food;

they pick up the stuff from the DC. You know—it's the image consultant that goes

around and says, "You know, you've got to change your shoes for this concert; this is

not the right. You know, your bow tie is . . . so these are jobs that they have: the

person who watches the door, the doorkeeper. If there's a guest, well then, that's the

person who has to watch out and make sure that they go get the music and help—and

then invites them into the rehearsal . . . or the person who cleans up at the rehearsal.

Or when we go to a church, we have the boy scout and the girl scout. They've got to

clean up the rooms and make sure that everything is better than when we came. I

mean these are jobs: the officers just come along and make sure that those jobs are

done.

112

Jim: Now, I've not heard of this in other groups. So I was wondering, where did you

get this idea?

Dr. Amy: Uh, in my graduate program I watched. I think it was the show choir—the

show choir at Ball State—they were all doing stuff. I noticed when they set up for the

shows, that even those who were all dressed up were moving in the equipment, and

they all seemed to—someone was working with the cords and . . . so I used that as a

springboard. That's all, just as a springboard. So I thought—well, you know, we can

do that too. There's a person who gives the pitch: that's the pitcher. There's a person

who tells us when we're supposed to be where—they're the good-to-go person when

we're ready for the bus to leave. There's a person who gets the vans. You see that

takes it all off of me—but they learn then how to do it. See the learner truly—they're

learning how to have their own choirs and their own groups. You know because you

see me running around often. I won't get it all done, and then they’d just sit back.

They don't have these jobs; they will never know how to have a choir or to run an

organization. It's true—it's really true.

Jim: Aren't you a little afraid though that's giving up too much control? That it's

giving the control over to the learner, to the student, rather than you having that

control?

Dr. Amy: You know what? I am watching. When I am around, I am on task, and I am

noticing and so all I have to do is if I walk to my place and there's no stand . . . well,

that was the standard bearer who was supposed to get that. You know what I am

113

saying? All I have to say is “where is the . . . ?” and I understand that there will be

times that they will forget but not many times. You know what I am saying? And I do

give up some things, that's true. I do—but I've got officers watching out. I've got a

lead team. I've got it built in so that I'm just the final person looking on—the officers

are all doing that. You see, so it's really student run. Yeah.

Jim: Okay. You eluded to a little bit, sometimes maybe the stand is not there. What

hindrances have you run across in implementing this model? What are some things

that have made it a little difficult, or things that you know at the beginning of the

year, something that you have to watch out for?

Dr. Amy: Well, you know what Jim, the other students I have are so busy and

stretched at this university. At Taylor, okay, last two weekends ago—not this past

weekend but the weekend before—that's six students in the lead of an opera Cosi fon

Tuti, the Mozart, the lead. The next weekend they are putting on the—the Be Mine on

Broadway for the Valentine dinner—a sold out event, you know. And in the midst of

that some of the students are out auditioning for graduate schools. And then we're

working around three of those students who are also in the play—so you see those

things present a hindrance. Well, they're just stretched, they're pulled in so many

directions and then the tiredness and just a not thinking—uh, just truly being tired.

Now one of our finest singers kind of messed up a little bit in her piece on Saturday

night. Well, she'd been in the opera the weekend before; she drove to Chicago on

Friday to audition; she got home Friday night; she came to our rehearsal, and then all

of a sudden the lights are on, and she could have used just a little bit more practice on

114

it, but again, nobody wants to fail. Nobody wants to forget the stand, you see, so if I

can always be a help, a facilitator rather than, "Why isn't the stand here?!" Well, that's

a stupid question. That's why, isn't it? Well, that doesn't help anybody. What are we

going to do with that? No, they don't want to fail. I am just trying to help them

succeed and often, Jim, I don't even have to say anything when something falls apart

or when something is not done right because they are high-achieving students. They

hardly even need me to say anything, and they know that we're going to leave on

time. They know that they will be left, and nobody wants to be left, but there is no

reason then for there to be anger. It all becomes trying to help the learner, making it

as positive—nobody is going to yell; nobody is going to be mad because they know it

becomes a setup. Well, like for instance, in today's rehearsal, they know which music

is due. Okay, so maybe now they know what the assignment is for today—Mozart. So

now they're all assigned to quartets. So now what they'll have to do today is they will

have to stand up with their quartet, and they will have to sing that. So as far as

learning, they will learn. They're not just a group of 55. They're divided into a quartet

with one on a part, so they're not going to get lost. They see that they are very

important, and you know what? So when they stand up together and they sing in their

quartet and the music falls apart, you don't need to even say anything because they

don't want to fail. They'll have it learned. You see what I'm saying? Nobody wants to

embarrass themselves.

Jim: What happens when they do fail? When they have not gone over it, they are not

prepared, it's obvious . . . ?

115

Dr. Amy: We will come back to them again—they know, yeah. Next quartet. And

then they'll come back the next rehearsal and have it, oh yes—and they'll have it.

Jim: And if they don't have it? Dr. Amy: They don't sing. Jim: All right. So there's a consequence. Dr. Amy: Oh yeah. And—consequence it would be— for the art-as-an-experience

students—if you don't come—if you don’t get up, you're not going to get the ten

points. You get up and you're going to get an A in this class because the reading is so

easy, and if you just do two pages a day, you're going to get an A. If you stay on the

schedule of learning your music, and we set it up so that we don't just say, "Now

that's due and no help." They've had sectionals. I've brought in Dr. Scott, retired

faculty. He's been running the sectionals on this. They've had every opportunity to be

successful in the Mozart. But if they notice, oh, I don't quite have my part; I'm warm

but maybe I need to do a little on my own . . . well, that's what they'll do, but they've

had plenty of opportunity in the rehearsal, in the sectional, and then, then they're

accountable to the whole group. So we set it up so they will be successful. It's not that

they've never had any work on it, and they're on their own. So we're just trying to all

stay together and make out a schedule—they know when it's due.

Jim: It was really interesting; you mentioned that you worked with the learner so they

could have their own choir. They could make their own choir?

116

Dr. Amy: Right, right. Jim: What about the point where the students would enter in to actually deciding what

music they were going to sing? Do you take it up to that level? Would they have input

on what they are going to sing for certain concerts?

Dr. Amy: Absolutely. Jim: Really? Dr. Amy: Now, not probably with that, Jim, because I spend so much time coming up

with this body of literature but then it might be. I meet with the officers every week

for a couple of hours for dinner on Monday night. So I might say to that group, those

four who have been chosen in the process for the semester. The spring before I had

everybody go to a different part of the room, and they fill out a form that basically

says, “I have seen the following do outstanding leadership and I will follow this

group of students.” You see, you know how it can become a joke sometimes where

someone will say, “Oh, I nominate . . . “and you know, with no thought if that person

can do the job. So they've committed to follow these four, and I take the four highest

—those who were mentioned the most. Everybody gets mentioned; they see

outstanding leaders so I meet with these four, and then I might say to them, “We've

got these six numbers—what do you think about which ones would be the most

appropriate for this concert?” But after I have weeded through a whole bunch really, I

know that any of their choices would be fine. They know what the criterion is, you

know. We are a college choir, and we are Christians in a Christian organization, and

117

we want to be good ambassadors, so I'm not going to do some of the music that some

composers have sent to me that doesn't fit what our mission, what we're going to do.

So as a college choral group, we consider what's worthy to put in front of the group

for our audience. So then I've weeded through this and you [the four officers] can

choose, and I can go with you. I can be flexible then, or I hear the group sing it and I

think, “Oh, this isn't the personality of this group.” Yes, I would take them through

this process to choose.

Jim: What about the assessment of final grades? Do students have any input on

assessment at all? Would the officers?

Dr. Amy: Well, that would they know if they—their attendance is key. Now let's just

say for the choral ensembles: if they've made that ensemble, and if they are at the

performances, and the rehearsals, we take attendance every day and after a certain

amount of misses . . . . See they know they get cuts, according the university policy,

but beyond that then we start lowering the grade. Or they miss a performance; that's a

lower grade. So they know that, and then the General Education courses students

have a whole bunch of opportunities. They've got concert reports, and then with

blackboard, they can check and see right where they are. Every day they can see what

they got on the quiz, and whether they've got their three concert reports and their

presentation. So they've got the criteria, but I guess they don't really determine what

that criterion is. Yeah.

Jim: I just want to explore that with you because the chorale seems a little bit

different from art-as-an-experience as a General Education course mode; it is sort of

118

two different things. Why don't you just think about this for a second? What would

happen if you would take the techniques that were used in the chorale facet, giving

people titles, jobs, and put that into art-as-an-experience?

Dr. Amy: Wow. Why couldn't that work? What would that be like? Jim: Exactly. Dr. Amy: What would that be like? What would that be like? All right. There would

be a person who would come in and set up the four stands. There would be the person

who runs off the attendance. There would be a person who warms up the computer

and comes in on that. There would be a person who would choose—who could that

be, Jim, they could choose a visual piece of art with a sacred subject and—uh, do a,

kind of a little focus on that kind of situation. There could be a person who—now I

just—I don't know how I would come up with 55. I have 55 in my class. Yeah, but I

could maybe do that with my conducting class where there are 11-15 in that class. I

could, that is a good idea.

Jim: What hinders professors from giving control to autonomous learners, the sheer

number of students?

Dr. Amy: For that. Not for the chorale (55 members) because there is so much to do,

and we go out so much. It would work, but that is worth thinking about . . . it could be

rotating jobs; it could be for these 2 weeks. I've only got them for 6 or 7 weeks.

119

Jim: Why is the title so important? Why are you looking for leaders? If you could do

these things, you would. What is the reason?

Dr. Amy: It's ownership, that's all. It's ownership; they are a part of this; they've got a

job, and they are important. And yes, it's a big organization, but they are very

important to the running of that—they see. I've got liquidators that help Jan with the

punch after an event—and that's how we refer to them— lumberjacks, lumberjanes.

Jim: What about ownership in the class, a conceptual thing, for art-as-an-experience?

For students to take that ownership, so you are willing to give it to them in terms of

giving them something to do?

Dr. Amy: Yes, I do. And I'm willing to give it in the presentation as well, to be as

creative—that becomes part of the criteria: How creative can you be because they

make the class. And we set that up, and we want it creative. And so they take the

ownership of having to do that. They're not going to sit, and I'm going to tell them

what these definitions mean, you know. They've got to do it, and it's got to be

creatively done so that then they're accountable for that. But I could do more probably

with the ownership of the class. That's interesting, interesting.

Jim: I see you being so successful with chorale and others, and I was just kind of

wondering what the hindrance is because it is a different modality of learning. There

is more theory rather than practice.

120

Dr. Amy: Okay, now it's not performance-based in terms of that kind of performance

but it is of this. You know what? I probably could do more with that ownership thing

in that class as I think about it. That would just take some further thought.

Jim: You don't seem afraid to give up your role in the spotlight in that class. Dr. Amy: Oh Jim, who could listen to me for 50 minutes? And you know what, that is

not my forte. That is not my skill as a professor: lecturing. I think there are some

skilled lecturers, but not for this class, not for this—that's not going to work for that

class. It would have to be a different time; you've got to bring in so many stimuli to

keep their attention.

Jim: But don't you like to the admiration of the students when you become the sage-

on-the-stage?

Dr. Amy: Jim, that matters zilch. And you know what, Jim, I don't know. I think when

a person then becomes uncomfortable in saying, “I don't know this.” So I'm learning

with you. I'm happy for that. I've got my strengths and my interests, but I am not an

expert on some of this instrumental music and students try to trip you up. You know,

there's that isolated student that comes along every couple years that tries to

antagonize a little bit. You know what I'm saying—but it's quickly diffused when you

are able to say, "I don't know, I don't know, that's not my expertise, let me double

check that. You raise a good point there," and yet to try to not play into this or not be

antagonized by sometimes a very smart student who wants to antagonize a little bit or

show their expertise by tripping up a professor. Then that becomes that they're trying

121

to get attention as well, but if you just don't buy into that—you know. So, no, I think I

can do well for a couple of minutes and then I—since I'm a visual learner, I've got to

—for my own interest—I've got to be bringing in things that illustrate it. And now

that the technology is increasing, and I've got now that overhead that you can stick

the book under it and everybody can be right with you. You've got the internet.

You’ve got the lectures; you've got some overheads; you've got some books; you've

got some hymn books. You can be coming at students from a lot of different

directions.

Jim: What about the student—I know you have students like this—they don't mean

any disrespect. They are just so anxious to learn; they just want to know more, and

they just consistently are at you. What about this—how do you deal with those

students?

Dr. Amy: Now I might have that more Jim in my conducting class, so you know what,

that becomes something to deal with outside of class time. I've got to allow for those

who want to stop by my office. It can even be 5 minutes, where they've got a question

about something; they've got a little problem with one of their conducting things, and

so I might need to give them something, an extra piece of music or then they feel free

to ask questions, and certain times of the day you know, just to say, "Could I have 5

minutes, would you check my pattern on this?" Some of those students are the same

students who are in the ensembles, so I put them on a list to lead the warm ups. So

those who need the extra and are just so eager to know and lead that they can conduct

in the Chorale and Sounds. Just that little extra.

122

Jim: How do you get to know your students? Dr. Amy: It's like on the tours. I meet with the officers a lot, every Monday night.

Starting that first semester, the altos came over one night, the tenors came over one

night, the basses came over one night.

Jim: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but you said they come over to your office? Dr. Amy: Come over to our house. Jim: Your house? Dr. Amy: Yeah! Yeah! So on a night and it's one hour we say. I mean because that

gives a professor then some parameters as well—so that way they are not going to

stay until midnight. It's 9:00-10:00. But they're good with that—no, it's just 9:00-

10:00, and, "So all right, it's 10:00, we're out!" So that gives everybody some

freedom, you know. I can stop by for one hour. I can stop by for 30 minutes. So that

they're in our home; they're doing projects. With the Sounds, I have officers, so I

meet with them so I get to know them well. So those are some of the different little

things that we do that we work on outside of the actual rehearsal. Now in the art-as-

experience class, that's a little tougher. When there is a Chicago trip, then on the bus I

can get to know them, and I can get to know them in the hotel and going to

restaurants, and if you are intentional, you are going to hang out with the students or

else you are going to go, and you are going to spend it with the other professor/adults

who are on the trip. But if you are intentional about making sure that you are going

123

out with the students. And if you are inclusive—we try to set up those (trips) so that

everybody is included. Not just popular people. I try to eliminate cliques in the

ensembles and just provide a lot of opportunities and in art-as-experience—look out,

when we go on these trips. When you are going to do something, the words you say

are, "Who wants to go?" you know, to build in these values. You know I think those

can be built in, in the teaching. You know I didn't give a great philosophical,

educational statement, but that's also got to be built in that everybody is important and

everybody is equal and everybody is worthy and that we need to watch out for those

who are—who might tend to be loaners or who feel not included—so to try to make

the environment of learning equal, fair, positive, loving, not antagonistic. So I think

the environment is important for the learner as well—a safe place to come—a fair

place.

Interview with Dr. Ben

Date: Friday, February 10, 2006 Jim: This is a conversation. I really want to know what your ideas are, what your

thinking is on learning, so I appreciate you doing this. You represent, of course, the

history curriculum, but also the large senior seminar with the General Education

curriculum. You've had administrative education posts. I'm trying to get a cross-

section of professors from across the university curriculum, so thank you for doing

this. You add an important dimension.

Dr. Ben: Well, thank you, Jim.

124

Jim: One of the questions just to start and it's kind of a big one, but it's really not

meant to be that intense is this: At the core of your teaching philosophy, what are

some values that you consider important?

Dr. Ben: Yeah, I'll mention two maybe three, but the first is respect for the student

and respect for the student as a learner. Respect for the student as an individual and

an understanding that part of that respect involves my recognition that the student

comes to my class with a life, a big life beyond my classroom. And so if I am going

to be effective communicating the information that they need to know and giving

them a chance to master the skills that they need to master, I've got to know as much

as I can about who they are before they come and respect that; even though they may

be dramatically different in terms of the background that they bring to the class. The

second is engagement. I have the sense that no one really learns in the truest sense of

learning—if learning is defined as a relatively permanent change in behavior. No one

really learns unless she or he is engaged in it, and that engagement has to involve

emotions as well as the intellect, and that means that I try to create a classroom

environment in which students are invited to interact with me and with the ideas and

with ideas expressed by others in the class and while being respectful to one another,

the whole idea is to connect the course material in a way that there is this sense of—

almost a compulsion on the part of the student to become part of what we're doing.

And again, recognizing that there are some students who are quick to respond to that

and participate in class discussions. There are other students who are more reserved,

depending upon the size of the class. They may have certain fears or anxieties that are

more likely as far as engagement that I can see, more likely to show up as part of a

125

short answer that they write in response to a question or something that they would

post online as part of a Blackboard discussion or maybe a conversation that we have

after class in which they initiate something or a conversation that happens as the

result of something that I initiate with them after class. For example, there could have

been some body language that I saw at a certain point. It's not uncommon for me to

say to a student after class, "Well, when I made such-and-such a point, I looked at

your face, and it looked to me as though you were thinking 'Is he nuts?' or how much

more wrong could you be?" And then as a result of that, a conversation occurs.

Sometimes then, sometimes, it's a conversation that is initiated because of that

moment, but then the actual conversation happens later as the student comes back and

responds to those ideas. So I think respect, and I think engagement. I think also

providing the third would be a variety of ways in which a student can become

engaged in part of the class and that would be everything from Blackboard to the

student initiating questions and conversations, with me initiating questions and

conversations after class. Or, and this is one of the great things about a campus like

Taylor, either a student or me initiating a conversation somewhere else on campus,

and usually if I initiate the conversation, it'll be me saying to a student, "I noticed—"

and it's usually something about body language or, "You said something in class, and

the more I thought about what you said, I wondered—"

Jim: In relationship to that statement, there's a term called autonomous learners. What

does that mean to you?

126

Dr. Ben: Well, I'm not familiar with your operating definition necessarily, but as I

look at that in the connotation that I have, one would hope that at this point in a

student's educational career that there are resources, that there is a level of

knowledge, that there are certain questions that students have within themselves.

Even if it's a General Education courses class, every now and then you stumble across

something that resonates with something that student has experienced, something that

maybe has been part of their major field of study, something that may have been part

of their family experience. There is something within that student that says, "I

wonder" or "It seems to me that"—he's not really figured out something that I know.

And so the student is able to say, to pose a question within herself or himself that

identifies something that isn't or doesn't resonate quite right or that there's a "rest of

the story." And the student posing the question can go beyond the instructor, maybe

use the instructor as the beginning point, but the student can beyond the instructor and

identify other resources that enable that student then to take an idea, an issue that was

part of the class and then follow up on that himself or herself, so that the student

actually has more ownership, personal ownership in the learning that's taking place.

It's not something that is directed.

Jim: Do you run the risk then that somehow students will go off on rabbit trails, that

seems not really pertinent, so they are just learning a bunch of minutia?

Dr. Ben: And so what you want is to establish an environment in which students do

that in that they go off on these trails, and they come back. They actually then engage

in conversation; they actually engage in follow up with you or you're able to pick up

127

on something. You write a response in a short answer, an essay that they wrote, and

there was something in that response that indicated that they had gotten off on this

tangent, and so as a result you initiate with them, "Well, did you think about or have

you read, or did you see?" and you ask redirecting questions that are contradictory,

that refocus what they had been thinking. The idea is that, of course, at the end of the

experience, at the end of the term, you want students to be able to demonstrate a

mastery of content and skills that would be expected of any student who had been in

that class at any university. So the idea ultimately is to have a level of achievement

and ownership that would be reasonably expected for somebody who had been

through that subject material.

Jim: I'm so glad you are using the word ownership, because that's one of the things

that I've been wrestling with: "How do we get students to take more responsibility or

more ownership for the content information when we are basically giving it to them

and saying this is important?" But they don't always somehow believe that or

understand it. They may think, “We'll memorize it because the professor said so,” but

like you said at the beginning, it really doesn't change the students’ life much. How

do we get them to show some responsibility? Have there been some examples?

Dr. Ben: Oh sure, well, in General Education courses that are highly populated by

General Education courses students, the normal response is that "I'm here because this

is a hoop that I have to jump through." Seldom does a student come to a senior

seminar or to a history course and say, "I'm here because I really love history." So

what you have to do is over the course raise the important questions, the overarching

128

principles that are likely to touch all of us at some point or another, and then give

concrete examples that come from the real world. Assuming the campus is not a real

world, but that relate to student experiences that may have involved an experience

they had at a practicum or summer job or that they have seen their parents go through,

but a real, real connection. So in a history class, we're talking about the 1850s. We're

talking about compromise on moral issues and what happens when political leaders

are making highly significant issues that relate to our moral values, and how do we

respond when a supreme court in the Dred Scott decision says, "A slave is not really a

citizen, is not really a person defined in the constitution; therefore, she has no legal

standing." And where the court goes even further, it strikes down the Missouri

Compromise in essence making slavery perfectly legal anywhere in the country.

Well, that's judicial tyranny, isn't it? Well, isn't that we're talking about today in terms

of the federal court system? And so with a variety of issues at that kind of national

level or at a more personal level, what do you do if you were born into a Virginia

planter society and your folks are part of the Episcopal Church and as the Bible is

taught from the pulpit in that Episcopal Church, slavery is never identified as a moral

ill. And so you spend all of your life being reinforced with the idea that Scripture

supports the institution of slavery. Well, how do you respond then to a slave who is

beaten by an overseer or how do you respond to an abolitionist whose telling you that

you are morally reprehensible? So if you look at that on a personal level from the

1800s, and then you think about issues today, moral issues today that we face, those

are more likely to enable students to see, "Okay, well, this is not just about a textbook

issue; this is about human nature.” This is what it is about, what it means in our case

129

at a place like Taylor to integrate who you are as a person of faith and soul with who

you are as someone in the economy or someone in the community, someone in the

local church; so those kinds of connections. But continually drawing the picture for

students to look beyond the textbook or lecture notes to identify the personal

connections. I think the model that all of should probably see ourselves more as

coaches than we do—bottom line. And a coach is constantly trying to establish an

understanding of an athlete that will enable the coach to find just what will motivate

that particular athlete to perform at a higher level. And for each athlete it's different.

Some athletes, you have to be in their face; other athletes need affirmation. Others

just need to be taught; they need to be shown; they need to be modeled.

Jim: So being a good coach allows students to practice their shooting. What if a

student comes up to you and says, "I'm really interested in this idea of slavery, and I

can trace it back to England and Europe. May I continue this study?" Have you

supported any independent study? For example, have you used contract learning or

anything like it to facilitate learning outside the classroom?

Dr. Ben: I've not done that at the college level, the contract learning. But I have

directed independent studies that were raised as the result of work the student did in

one class or more likely what happens where there are presentations or where there

are other research projects in the class. I encourage students to tackle topics about

which they have some personal connection or some sense of identification. And then

to narrow the topic so that it's achievable within the time frame, but to pursue a topic

130

that they are personally interested in as opposed to just a topic that is suggested by the

authors of the textbook.

Jim: So what does it mean to give control for learning to autonomous learners? Dr. Ben: There's the idea that, as part of the Taylor mission, we talked about lifelong

learners and really what you're talking about, Jim, suggests that what we're trying to

do is that by the time a student graduates with a diploma and a towel, that student is

perfectly capable, in fact even excited about, the prospect of not just entering a

profession, but leaving us and taking personal control for development of knowledge

and skills that are essential for them professionally or personally, etc., where they

aren't sitting back waiting for someone else to solve, to answer their questions and

solve their problems. So there probably was a time when we could assume that a

college freshman would be capable of doing that pretty well on her own or his own.

That's not the way adolescence is today. There are some mature freshmen who can do

that, but the majority can't. We go from first semester, "Could you give me a study

guide?" before each test and, "Could we have a study session?" before a test to

hopefully a time when as seniors they hear something in a lecture or they read

something in a textbook, and they may say, "But wait a minute," and "Could you

suggest—you know I looked in the library, and I found this and this—could you

suggest something else to go along with that?" That is ultimately where we want to

get them. But it doesn't happen by accident. We all have to, all of us from those who

work in the specific major fields the students major in to those of us who work in the

General Education courses program, we all have to be very intentional about that, and

131

we have to understand that developmentally as freshmen, the majority are not able to

do that. But we also have to understand that developmentally we should be moving

them as juniors and seniors way beyond that initial stage of research.

Jim: That's why it may be good to say in the students’ senior year that we've only got

a few months till they graduate, and they could be up teaching history in front of their

class within a year. So how are they going to do that?

Dr. Ben: My pitch in senior seminar is the major focus in the senior seminar class, of

course, the applied group service learning or civic engagement project. My pitch to

them is that the project focus needs to come from you. Now you are seniors, and I

could have a group of speakers; I could assign topics, but that's not really the way it's

going to work after you leave Taylor. As a senior, you now should be at the point

where as an individual who is part of a group, you are capable of identifying a project

that has meaning beyond yourselves, and you are able to identify resources that can

help you plan that project, and as a group, you should be able to develop objectives

that will be achieved, an assessment plan that will relate to measuring the success that

you have. But you should be able to do that on your own. And rather than me

dictating that, what I want to see from you is your ability to take what you have

learned in your major fields and what you learned in General Education courses and

apply them to a specific social issue.

Jim: So does that happen? Do students do that?

132

Dr. Ben: More often than not, yes, but what I don’t have is a system in which, in

those cases where it's not happening, is to go back and intervene as a . . . I want to be

able to do this learning model. I would say, Jim, based on the portfolios that are

turned in, the end-of-project assessments that are presented, there probably 70-75% of

you who have more than achieved the objectives, and the objectives were meaningful

objectives with about a quarter of the students choosing the easy way out. They’re

just not getting it. But the overwhelming majority, in fact, has stepped up, and they

have assumed the personal responsibility. As in the meeting we were in with Mary

Rayburn though suggested, students, like all of us, will sometimes look for the easy

way out, so they look for shortcuts. But overwhelmingly, they've demonstrated they

can do it. They are very resourceful, even if it's conning the university out of a car.

Jim: I want to share with you an experience from a class over J-term. It's called

Leadership in Business and had five students. I had this great small group. I asked

them to meet with me before and to develop the curriculum. What will we do? What

is really of interest to you? Here are a number of things; there're no books. This is the

content kind of area; what really fits, and what would you be interested in studying?

And then, how would you assess how you really learned; how can you demonstrate

that you've accomplished something so we can actually give a grade? So in a sense,

you can do your own grade, and I won't have a part in that. Now for them to do their

grade assessment at the end, they brought a portfolio. I said I will sit as judge and

jury; it's your job to convince me that you know these various kinds of things at an

“A” level. Now go to it. You can have as many resources here as you want; whatever

you want to do. I found it really interesting. A number of them said it was life-

133

changing. A number of them said, "I've never done anything like this before. It was

awfully scary." A number of them said, "Well, it seemed pretty ambiguous because it

was so large at the beginning." And I'm wondering, what's your take on this? I

experienced some good things and some bad things with that. What is your take on

involving students in the development of the curriculum and also having a part in

their own assessment?

Dr. Ben: Well, the example you've given is a great example. I mean it's just the

epitome of the autonomous learner. They need a focus, I think, in terms of engaging

students to the term where they as individuals and as a group can do this. I think that

in the ideal that would be more the norm and by ideal, I mean in terms of class size,

in terms of time to engage in discussions that are part of the preparation and

opportunities to interact with the students throughout the course. I think that it's

obviously not the most efficient way of organizing the course, but I think, in terms of

maximizing the learning that students would carry from the course, it's a great

example of the level of engagement that has the likelihood of students carrying

specific knowledge, specific skills from that course that will still be with them

decades later as opposed to a course that had a syllabus in which the student had no

input in preparing, an assessment plan that the student had no input in designing, and

a group of textbooks, aside from the check they wrote, they really never invested in

personally. And so I think that's a great example. I think it would be successful at all

levels, freshman through senior. I think it would be particularly successful at the

senior level.

134

Jim: I found it a little intriguing that the chapel programs were not attractive to

students until the pastor got a number of students on his committee and said, “Okay,

the students will also review the speakers, listen to the speaker's tapes, and vote on

whether it's something of real interest.” I saw a decided shift after that. Now I don't

always agree with their topic. But I saw a shift in attendance to the point that it seems

that people who are in chapel are engaged, are interested because they seem to have

this input—some ownership. Is that a realistic kind of expectation that we could have

for professors, that they would get input from students? And in your own course,

would you even like that, or is that considered as they're not experts; they don't know

about this area? Why they really need this stuff; it’s good for them?

Dr. Ben: Well, in life it’s always the search for the balance. The goal in medium is

probably what is going to be best for everyone. And really even in the model that you

suggested, Jim, you had input in terms of guiding students. There were certain

boundaries that you established in the beginning that assured that whatever reading

was done, assured that whatever topics were chosen, the students would walk away

with the kind of knowledge and understanding, those sorts of skills that they needed

to know after completing a Business Leadership course. So you established some

boundaries that made certain that would be part of the course. But then, students

bought into it by being able to make choices in terms of an emphasis, in terms of

books and assessment, the method of assessment that would actually be implemented.

At the end of the course, however, as the judge and jury, again you were there to

insure that the basic minimal, more than minimal would be present in the portfolios

that they put together. I think that level of engagement ought to be more common, but

135

in an American-style system which is not unlike an assembly line system, it's not

always likely that that level of engagement can occur, as desirable as it is.

Jim: You know the history of U.S. business, Henry Ford and others promoted the

assembly line mentality. Is education still in the assembly line mentality? Is education

going to have major paradigm shift from the assembly line mentality with open

information on the internet and with increased competition from online courses?

Dr. Ben: Well, it ought to and one of the things that ought to be an identifier for a

school that considers itself a premier teaching institution is in fact that this level of

student engagement ought to be the norm. It ought to describe what happens. Here's

what is working against it, Jim, at the P-12 level now, everything is measured, all of

the success, all of the inputs are measured by standards that have been established by

relatively small groups, if you will, of elites. It's not meant to be that way, but the

reality is that that's what happens. And then, standardized assessments that are

designed to measure the level to which those standards have been mastered. The

teachers have no idea which of the standards will be tested. They have no idea the

frequency with which standards will be tested, and yet, their effectiveness as a teacher

and the ability of their students is measured by these instruments. We are moving

from P-12 to P-16, so no matter what the method of delivery is on the federal level,

there is a move, and it will be connected to higher ed appropriations. There is a

movement to develop standardized tests for every course area at the college level.

And what will happen is that there will be groups, small groups that become part of

the establishment of standards at the undergraduate level. Those standards will be

136

transferred into this multi-multi-billion dollar educational testing, California testing

empires, and so just like an assembly line, we're going to say, “Okay, well here's

where you are. You're taking a sophomore-level, you're taking a 100-level history

course in U.S. History, and what do you know in comparison to everybody around the

country knows who's taken this course?” And the success of that course will be

measured by that score and by the statistics that are gathered from that score. Well,

what they've done with standards at the P-12 level is, for example in history, students

at this grade level will cover up to this period. Students at this level will cover up to

this period. Now, we don't want to go back and do anything that had been done

earlier, so there are these discrete scopes and sequences that are established, and there

never is anywhere a time where students put the whole thing together or are asked to

put the whole thing together in any way, which is the assembly line approach. We

have these inputs, and this input goes in at the fourth grade; this input goes in at the

seventh grade; this input goes in at the eleventh grade; this input goes in at the

undergraduate 100-level course; this input goes in at the 300-level course.

Jim: So if that's the case, then they standardized the knowledge into various kinds of

things that people know; it seems to me that could all be computerized and a student

could be sitting at home on a program routine at their own convenience and going

through the various curriculum by basically memorizing all of it and come away from

the process and say, “That's an educated person.” What are your thoughts on this

scenario?

137

Dr. Ben: Exactly. Which in one sense will actually make online programs, non-

traditional delivery systems that are less expensive by virtue of the costs more

attractive; because you get the same end goal, and the same end goal is to have this

certification, and why pay for a Harvard or why pay for a Notre Dame degree when

you can get certification, which is the end goal? You know, one of the markers I've

heard from students who have participated in traditional degree-completion programs

is that even more so than the traditional program, it's about how many hours taken in

sequence as part of a cohort group, and at the end of the program, there's nothing that

asks you to go back and say, "Now where have I been? What does it mean?" One

would think that that ought to be a key element for someone who is earning a college

degree.

Jim: What about the learner that really wants to learn and says, "You know I would

like to study how this idea of slavery that I’ve just learned from Dr. Jones ties into

some ideas with business management.” Where is the help for that reflective learning

time that you just pointed out as necessary?

Dr. Ben: Because it's inefficient. It's absolutely inefficient, and it costs too much to

guarantee the kind of results that you want to guarantee.

Jim: What do you mean it costs too much? Dr. Ben: In terms of the number of students that faculty can work with at any given

moment and the amount of personal commitment they can make intellectually, in

other words, to mentoring those students. It's much easier at a place like Taylor.

138

Consider the sociology courses. What, in the big sociology courses like Ethnic and

Minority Relations, those kinds of courses, they're now going with 75-80 students in a

class, because there's a scale of efficiency, and then they divide the class into smaller

discussion groups. But it's much easier; it's much more efficient for the university's

resources to have an instructor who's lecturing to 70 students or 75 students than to

have that instructor delivering that class to two or three sections of 20 or 25 or 30

students, so the push is there. If you look at the community college system of Indiana,

it's designed on a faculty that is primarily not a resident, tenured faculty. It's adjuncts

who come in. They deliver small discrete portions of the courses. They have no idea

about the larger institutional mission and objectives. There's no idea what anybody

else is doing, but they deliver a course for as many students as they can possibly get

in that course, and they are not going to be paid insurance benefits or retirement

benefits, any of those things because they can't offer a course for $300 and do that.

Jim: Exactly. There is a university in London. On their website it says we are learner-

centered. Professors take time to help learners really learn. Learners can learn

subjects in a deeper way by reflecting with professors one-on-one, and they seem to

really capitalize on that idea. Does the learner have more marketing power than ever

before, since universities compete for students? Whereas in the past, students were

lucky to go to one or two schools and count themselves lucky if they were admitted.

They would take their seat: sit down, be quiet, and listen. Given the present shift of

student power, what do you think will occur when the learner asserts this kind of

market power? Will it change methodologies, pedagogies, other kinds of things in

education and learning?

139

Dr. Ben: Right. It already has to a certain point. Personally, I think about the MA

work I did at Notre Dame and the assumption was that at the end of that program, we

would demonstrate in written comprehensives that we were capable of teaching a

college survey course without ever referencing a textbook. There was this sense that

everything we did worked ultimately toward that objective. So when we completed

the program, you take written comps twice, and if you didn't make it the second time,

you had to transfer out and start over. I look at masters programs today, and by and

large, the level of expectation that existed at Notre Dame—it’s just not competitive.

In fact at Notre Dame, that program no longer exists because students have voted to

put their capital somewhere else. So, I see it already is having an effect. I think it's

going to have more effect particularly when, take a specific example in the

community college system, as far as the State of Indiana has decided in its wisdom

that we will have a focus on freshman/sophomore level courses being primarily

offered through the community college system, and we're just at the beginning of that.

But are we going to make that work because the guys at West Lafayette look at

courses taken at the community college, and they scoff. Well, in order to make it

work, the State of Indiana, through the higher ed commission, has said, "Well, you

will accept those credits." And so a statistics course taken at any of the community

college campuses will count toward fulfillment of the statistics requirement at West

Lafayette, and whether you like it is not a question. It will happen and so, the State

aligning itself with a community college system is dictating policy matters that affect

the academic standards of institutions like Purdue or IU, Bloomington, and the other

state schools. So in that case, you have actually the state arm for that. If the State, and

140

I think it will, and the federal government establish a standards focus with

standardized assessment of those standards at the undergraduate level, then again all

that will matter is, “Can you pass the test?” And who cares what format? So non-

traditional programs, lots of programs that prepare people to take those exams, will

become much more popular. Whoever can do it with a sense of some kind of a

prestige . . . What matters is what percent of the students who take your courses pass

these exams. That would be the bottom line. That's how the public looks at it. There

are those in the public who value a real education, that is to say, something in which

you have invested yourself.

Jim: Well, because businesses have been very critical of higher education, saying that

as students come out of traditional university education, they don't have the skills that

businesses need, so the corporations have determined to make their own institutes, for

example GM’s Sloan’s institute to McDonald’s Hamburger University. What is your

comment to this statement?

Dr. Ben: You're exactly right Jim, and they may be missing a very important point

which is what they're talking about often times are specific skills that relate to how

they do accounting or how they organize the production. When I worked for the Net

Newspaper, my interviewer said, "Don't major in journalism. Major in political

science, major in history, major in English. We can teach you the technical part of

how we want you to structure your life. What we can't teach you is to think, and we

want you to be able to think, so we're quite willing to invest in teaching you the

141

particulars of what a story looks like, but we want you to come to us prepared to think

and analyze and engage in a way that is beyond the technical aspect."

Interview with Dr. Ron

Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 Jim: You know so much about this topic. What we're talking about is how students

learn, and how professors engage the learner. I previously asked you if you used a

learner contract method, independent studies, and other ways of working with

autonomous learners.

Dr. Ron: Is this a research project? Jim: This is. This interview will become part of my dissertation, and you will be

known as Dr. Ron, but no one will know.

Dr. Ron: I may not know a thing! Jim: I think you do because you have started the Irish Studies Program, and it's

popular with students. Students wouldn't be going if they didn't think they were

learning something from the experience. I think you have done some really creative

things in education. Just kind of leading into that, what are a few of your central

points that make up your teaching philosophy? What do you think is really important?

Dr. Ron: You mean as far as what I am teaching or how am I assessing? Jim: Just your whole approach to the education process.

142

Dr. Ron: It's not in the sense of a ton of information. It's not just data, data, data, data.

Rather, it's a few major concepts, but I know them well. For example, in Foundations

of Psych, I don’t teach it like a general psych course. In Foundations of Psych there

are some major principles I want the students to know: one is that there are different

perspectives in psychology. Not all psychologists think alike. In fact they are in great

disagreement. So I want them to know the five major perspectives, ways of thinking

about psychology. How Christian theism is not a religion, in this sense, but rather

another perspective and how the perspectives inform them about the data. Yes, we

use data, but not as the primary focus. The data is the lab work on how to think about

psychology. Because they are not going to remember all the details 6 months from

now, but hopefully, they remember how to think about details when they are

consumers of psychology or when they directly go on in the major, they pick up the

other courses and how if fits into a way of thinking about it. Leave the detail, for

example, I want them to know a few things and know them very well.

Jim: What else would you put with that tenet? Dr. Ron: That they understand theory. Again, in my field of counseling, so often

people just learn a grab bag of techniques without understanding why. And I think at

the undergraduate level, they need to know "why," to know the theory behind, again,

the different techniques. So I want them to be strong in theory. So there would be two

major areas that drive my teaching in all my classes.

Jim: What do you know about the term, autonomous learner? What does that mean to

you?

143

Dr. Ron: Autonomous learner, when I hear it, what comes to mind is online learning,

television learning, and remote learning in some fashion. That is the best that I would

understand it.

Jim: Okay, that's fine. This is just a conversation, okay? So one of the things I would

like to explore with you is the kind of student that represents four traits: they are

really desirous of an education, they make good decisions about their education—

intentional, studying until their curiosity is sated—persistent, and they are very

resourceful.

Dr. Ron: You were saying strong interest. Jim: So they have a desire. They have initiative. They're resourceful and persistent.

Do you know that kind of a student? If you have that kind of person in mind, as a

professor, what would you do with that student who comes to you and says, "I just

really want to know more about this?" Please give an example of what you would do

with this student.

Dr. Ron: I would do what I am tempted to do in some respects as long as it’s an area

that I have either expertise or strong interest myself. I wouldn't say, “I am not a big

fan of saying okay, go write a research project, and let me know what you find."

There's no modeling of learning; there is no shared investigation; there's no shared

development of thinking. I couldn't dialogue with them if I wasn't myself at least

relatively versed to some degree in the topic. So I wouldn't take an independent study

144

on or take on an individual student unless it was in an area that I at least had some

level of interest.

Jim: Why would you want to dialogue with them? Dr. Ron: I just think the whole thing of going back to the whole idea of theory,

perspective, basically answering the question, "So what?" Why do we want to learn

this? What makes the difference? So my approach has been when I've had a student

do something like that it’s okay, let's do it because we have another department of

directed research idea. It may not be empirical research, but it might be literature

review research; it might be survey research; it might be that kind of thing, so it

would be a matter of what do we want to find out about this? Do some guided

research, then have discussion about that guided preliminary research, and then

develop some kind of thesis statement/questions we want to have answered that might

come out then in either more literature review research, or it might come out in actual

interview-type research, and then let's bring this all together. I'm having a student do

this in this semester. Her final project is on counseling teenagers and issues. We'll do

a general survey of issues that teenagers face, but let's pick one and really understand

it. Let's introduce some counselors out there who deal with it, and then I want you to

create for me an exhaustive research paper on one area, a survey on all the areas, a

summary of the research, of your interview research with counselors, and then I want

you to create a workshop with resources on that topic. In other words, I don't want a

one-page demonstration; I want a notebook of useable material.

145

Jim: So they have to get the research, so that binds it into that resourcefulness this

person has; they're willing to do that. Back a little bit to the uneasiness that you said

you might have if it’s an area outside of your field. Would you comment more about

this?

Dr. Ron: If they want to come in and study brain chemistry, that's just not my field of

expertise. I've taken a couple of courses. I understand medications, but no, that's just

not me. If it's something in theories of personality, that's just not me, and I really don't

have an interest either. I would encourage them to look elsewhere, to other experts.

Jim: To find someone else to facilitate the learning? Dr. Ron: Because I still believe, maybe I'm old school enough, there's got to be in the

midst of the whole learning an expert. I mean even with my online students, with

CLL, I like to have dialogue with them. I ask questions like, “What are you seeing

about this?” It's purely the old-fashioned way, but I still want to have it. If it's the

student on campus then, I want to have some dialogue with them.

Jim: I'm still trying to understand why that is. Is it because of assessment? Is it a

comfortable level with you? Do you want to guide the process more?

Dr. Ron: I don't know if I want to guide, I just don't want to be irresponsible and just

say, "You go do it." I want to be a resource person, but I also guess have no great

need to control, so it's not that. But I guess maybe it's more responsible in the sense of

what are we going to come out with. What are you going to do? I guess I feel

responsible in that I want them to walk away with something that they have learned a

146

great deal from, and then I guess I'm a pragmatist. It is something that they can use,

something of benefit.

Jim: So are you saying that a learner might be in danger of learning something that's

really not much use if left to their own devices.

Dr. Ron: There is always that possibility. I mean I see a lot of independent studies

become nothing more than a 20-page research paper. They turn it in, they get a grade,

and it's all done and never thought of again. I haven't done that in years. I want them

to walk away with a notebook because mostly I'm dealing with kids who are

interested in counseling. So I want them to walk away with a notebook of resources

that they can use someway, in some fashion. And even in my training at Ball State, in

my doctoral program, in our portfolio before we went on internship, part of the

portfolio had to be workshops that we would create to teach technique to other

people. It's got to be a sense of learning it to use it.

Jim: So a number of these ideas you've picked up from graduate school? Dr. Ron: Yeah, there are just a number of ideas, mostly workshops we go to in our

field. Maybe it's the same in the business world; we are very much practitioner-

oriented. If they're not, most people are usually discouraged when they walk away.

What use was that? I can read a book. I want to know what's new and cutting edge in

treatment.

147

Jim: As just kind of an aside, in the “resourceful” area, do we encourage students to

actually email present theorists, authors that they're reading, and actually search them

out to understand what they have to say?

Dr. Ron: And they are amazed just how many authors and writers and researchers

will either answer their own telephone or are happy to write them right back and set

up phone interviews. Because in my counseling classes . . . that’s where mostly I have

been, they all do presentations on modern therapists, Christian therapists. I say just

email them or call, and you will be surprised, and they do, and they have great

information!

Jim: That's pretty exciting! Dr. Ron: Yeah! And they get excited about that! Jim: I just need to take a little bit different tack here. One of my claims to fame is that

I was in an AMA conference and sat next to B. F. Skinner for about 10-15 minutes.

We chatted about his retirement. Being in Psychology professor, you know all of his

tenets. Some in education utilize a behavioralist kind of thinking. What aspects of that

thinking would you use in the classroom, if any, and then juxtapose that with

constructivism, kind of thinking originating from Piaget? What do you do in those

areas?

Dr. Ron: Using Skinner, not just teaching Skinner. Right? Jim: Yes. You know, when you get really down to it.

148

Dr. Ron: Where I use it is in a different kind of way. I have done it though I don't do

it currently this year, but I have in the past. One thing I used to do is in my

Foundations class, like in Intro to Psych class, I give usually 20 quizzes over the

course of the semester. Well, I used to do them on a fixed interval schedule. They

know that they were going to have, over the course of the semester on average two

quizzes a week, but they didn't know on which days. They knew if I gave them on

Monday and Wednesday, they still could have a quiz on Friday. So I used the fixed

interval schedule and as research shows, a fixed interval schedule is the strongest

reinforcement schedule to increase then the highest level of attendance without ever

having to take attendance in a class. That's why I have done that regularly.

Jim: So does it work? Dr. Ron: Uh-huh. It really does! And I could show you in the data, but oh yeah! Now

I barely know the quiz dates. I've gone away from that in the last couple of years, but

the attendance rises and wanes based on if I give a quiz 23 out of 39 days. Because

the class is 74, it's always been that kind of a class.

Jim: Seventy-four students? Dr. Ron: That's how many seats there are available in the Metcalf lecture hall in the

basement of the Art building and the number of students.

Jim: And what class is this?

149

Dr. Ron: Foundations of Psych. It's like an intro course. But to totally digress briefly;

I also believe in environment. You know this. I can teach 74 students better in that

room than I can 40 in 218. I am much happier teaching 74 there than 40. You start

with 40, and you end up with 50 in this room, and it's just a horrible environment. So

I'm happy to teach 74. And again I'm thinking of the Foundations class. In fact I do,

do that. For example, I will give lectures on like . . . I just finished the whole thing on

the major psychological perspectives, and I said, “Okay, here's a chart. You go back

to your notes, and put it together. Oh, and some of those are counseling issues. Here

are the major issues of the use of scriptures and faith and learning as you develop a

theory of counseling. Here are the issues and here are the questions. Now you've

answered the questions; you have read the material. We've discussed it. Now you

answer this set of questions, and you create the questions, and what are the issues you

are going to raise when it comes building the Christian models of counseling?” And

then we go back to them, versus just telling them what they should do. Those would

be the two major areas that I do it in. They've got to pull it together. I mean in Ireland

it’s ripe with different examples when we're talking about where do the problems in

the north come from? You know, here is the history; now you look at the issue, you

bring it to why it's where they're at today. So it would be crossing lines and open their

theories of learning, but yeah.

Jim: I have a question for you. What does it mean to give control for learning to those

learners that really want to learn?

Dr. Ron: Ohhhh!

150

Jim: Is that even a plausible kind of thing? Dr. Ron: Oh, I think it is. You mean in the sense that they are choosing? I think it is. I

think it happens especially when we're done with school, you know.

Jim: Yeah, because they're going to be the ones who are going to be the counselors? Dr. Ron: Yeah, so I mean, I just think that what happens is that it tends to drive them

in clinical work to their specialization. But I think in any area of education it would

drive them to their specialization.

Jim: One of the things I've been wrestling with is how can we get the student to take

more responsibility for their learning? And then part of that responsibility is the

control for it. Is there anyplace that maybe we can shift, shift part of the responsibility

to the student for their learning?

Dr. Ron: I think the best examples I have in that are quite frankly in Ireland, of all

places, because we have a situation where the instructors are not there in reality.

Jim: Exactly, I wonder about that. Dr. Ron: See, Tom and I now co-teach 6 hours of credit. We have taken History of

Ireland, a history General Education courses. We've taken my Contemp. Ireland,

which is a civic engagement course, and we actually have merged the syllabi. The

students only see one syllabus for those 6 hours, plus 2 hours of cultural engagement.

Tom led those hours for an 8 hour syllabus. But there are a number of assignments

within there which are: develop research questions on this set of topics; pick one of

151

these topics and a set of research questions, and it has to do with kind of Irish history

in modern culture or how history has affected modern culture, and go find an Irish

family, a multi-generation Irish family, and interview them. And we get some great

stuff! I mean everything from Ireland remaining neutral in World War II. So go find a

multi-generational, or at least a father, son, and grandparents if you can, and

interview them on their perspective on Ireland's staying neutral, Ireland not being

now a member of NATO. You know Ireland is like Switzerland. It’s not a member of

NATO. Or, the Irish Civil War which was just 70 years ago, those things, or any of

the other or the Celtic tiger or the whole family structure, the role of the church in

society. So they go out, and do these interviews. It’s a simple assignment. They create

the research questions, and they carry out the research questions, and they analyze the

data, report to their groups in the class. Then they share the information. We found

that to be an extremely valuable assignment.

Jim: That was what I was wondering. Now how do the students react to that? Dr. Ron: They love it. They're nervous up front. "We've got to go find a family and

we've got to interview them?" And then they come away saying, "Wow! What a great

experience!" In fact, often times they say, "We wish we had done this sooner."

Because they kind of put this assignment off. You know what I mean. Even though

we push it, they kind of put it off. That's a big example. Another one is, in Ireland

we've got the advantage that we do so much traveling. They visit a number of places.

They see like 20 different major sites, and we assign ten questions or tasks. I've got

an outline that they've got to come up with a site visit. We call it a site visit report:

152

their reactions both of content, personal reaction, how this place is demonstrative or

reflective of the development of culture in the country, and then they do it

individually in their own journal. Then they get in a group of five and share that

information, and they write up a group summary of that experience. So it's individual.

Then it's group, and they assess it with a larger group. Then they go back to their

small group, and write the report, and then get feedback from.

Jim: When you're looking at this research that people have done and they've

interviewed people in Ireland, how do you assess that?

Dr. Ron: We assess it in their analysis, the students' analysis of the family they've

interviewed.

Jim: But that's not necessarily something that is in your expertise, background? Dr. Ron: No, not at all! Jim: Do you feel comfortable? Dr. Ron: Well, I feel comfortable just because the combination of my reading, my

living there, and dialoguing with Tom. I'm not going to say this to boast, but I

probably read 25 books on Irish history and culture a year, and they're not

monographs. And when I'm there, I spend a lot of time talking to a lot of people.

Jim: So you could tell if a student maybe didn't interview somebody, and they're

making up the whole thing?

153

Dr. Ron: Yes. Because as soon as they tell me what their religious and political

background is, I know the direction the conversation should go. See the other thing is

I know most of the people they end up interviewing. I know most of the people

because it's generally people in the churches, and I know most of the people from the

different churches.

Jim: What do you think is a hindrance to doing that kind of thing? Dr. Ron: It's the difference between being here, reacting and responding to them, and

being there. Here we get the emails; I set it up for them. Here's the way to do it. Now

you've got to rely on Stan and Cindy, for example, this semester. Mike and Esther,

they know it pretty well, and there they can talk about it over lunch.

Jim: The interaction then is important? Dr. Ron: I say let me see your questions, well, let's tweak it this way. I tweak it over

the internet, but to me I'm not a big fan of the telephone. I'm not a big fan of the

internet. I'm not a big fan of the cell phones. If I need to ask you something, I am

80% more likely to walk down to your office and ask you than to pick up a phone and

call you, or thirdly, to send you the question on the email. That's just my style.

Jim: I am really curious about your last statement. Is body language important to you

in learning? Evidently the body language is missing with those other forms of

communication, which you dislike.

Dr. Ron: I don't even think about it, I just like seeing the person I'm talking to.

154

Jim: But you must get something from that. Dr. Ron: I have no idea what it is. I don't know if it’s communicative or if I get

something from it, the sense of just personal contact. Yeah, I know I could have never

been a president of a university, who communicates via email. It couldn't have

happened. That's just not the way I'm wired. I couldn't do it; I'd be nuts! You know,

I'm ADHD enough that I want to get out and interact.

Jim: I understand what you mean. Dr. Ron: But so that's why I enjoy with being students. I mean that's part of the

reason I'm not one to send someone off to just go do their own research project, and

let me know at the end of the semester. Even when students are doing projects in

Ireland, we do major projects when we are there on major historical cultural periods.

And the students say, "Hey, can we go back to this particular site and have more

advanced study?" I say, "Sure! Hey, can I go with you?" You know, I just like to

learn with them and think with them, and that's just something I just thoroughly

enjoy.

Jim: So you feel—I'm just paraphrasing, you feel a kind of camaraderie with the

learner in that they are going to learn something new, and you would like to learn it

too? Or is it that they are going to learn something that may not be really of value so

you can help them something like training wheels for learning?

155

Dr. Ron: No. Mine is more like I'll learn it with them, and hey, not that they are going

to learn something not valuable, but hey, can we think further? Where can we take

this? Going back to the "so what" question.

Jim: Okay, so then are you saying to me, you like to be the stimulus for learning? Dr. Ron: Yeah, very much so. Jim: So they will think about it maybe a little bit deeper? Dr. Ron: There is more to it. I know somebody would say that's odd, but just that

activity of thinking with another person is just a lot of fun. That's what I like, being in

this place more than anything else. That's why I enjoyed Ireland so much because it

was even more there than here in the sense that it was 35 students constantly involved

in learning.

Jim: What would you recommend to professors, and what would you say to someone

that feels comfortable lecturing and feels very secure about the information and thinks

it's important for students; however, students are zoning out in the class; they're not

getting it. They can learn enough to pass the test, but actual learning is minuscule.

Dr. Ron: My colleague is a good example. He is a phenomenal lecturer but doesn't

drone on about detail. And that would be what he as a lecturer believes. That is, what

are the major points that you really want them to know well? How can you help to

make that happen? Mark's of the belief that we should cut our majors in half and

General Education courses in half.

156

Jim: What do you mean? Dr. Ron: Just cut the number of hours required for General Education courses. Cut

the number of hours in majors in half, and let's learn a few things really well.

Jim: Well, that's interesting because, for example, in the Oxford Studies Program, and

in some of the European countries, that's one of their major tenets. A student chooses

a few things to study, and at Oxford University, they say dig a deep hole; we don't

like this shallow, broad kind of western education. There a student can really learn

something deep enough to have really learned it.

Dr. Ron: And the stuff that transfers the basic skills to learn this, this, or this, is

transferable. So that's where I think Tom and I don't have the research. From what

Tom mentioned, research coming out of California back in the 80s or 90s was, “Let's

learn a few things and learn them well from multiple angles because the students will

then be more motivated to learn more and be more interested,” and the research is

showing even in something as simple as CLEP tests, we should let kids, if they have a

decent level of knowledge, let them CLEP because they are more likely than not to

take advanced course in the subject area. Sometimes we say, “Oh, we don't want them

to CLEP out too much; we want them to take our basic courses.” They take their

basic courses, and they quit. If they CLEP, they go to the higher level. So I think

that's what I would say to a lecturer, “What are the major things you want them to

know, and how can you develop those concepts for the students well?”

157

Jim: It seems to me that in education we do a kind of shotgun blast. You know, one

size fits all, and for some that are the active learners, the autonomous learners who

want to go ahead, we might say, “Now wait a minute while I go over here and talk to

some that are struggling,” or some have even said take those people and help out the

struggling ones, so they forego additional learning to become teachers in a sense for

the slower students. Do you think that we get to a stage where we might have more

individualized learning packages so that people can learn at their own pace, so it

doesn't have to be in a semester length of time and learn topics more in depth if they

wanted? Would we allow that? What do you think about that?

Dr. Ron: That's a huge question. Who knows? If it is going to happen, I would like to

see it. Once you get beyond basic ways of thinking about stuff, that's one reason why

our major is small. I mean, 38 required hours, smaller in Foundations; it's a way of

thinking about our field. It really uses the different models of thinking about

psychology with the idea being that students will then pick out the content, the formal

content within the areas they want to study within the major. So we have tried that to

some degree. See we only have six core courses required of all our students, and it's

tools courses. It's skills courses. It's research. It's integration—how to do integration,

how to do research, it's what is in that field, developmental psych, major areas of

basic knowledge. But beyond that, it's where do you want to go with it? Now it's not

individualized because once you get into a classroom, you're in a class with 30 again,

and you have got to disseminate the information. But I think we've got to look at

ways where there are courses, or again, maybe the Oxford model, where you begin to

go into those areas, and we at least have some opportunities for that, whether it be as

158

individuals or in small groups where you are able to focus on the area. We've got to

rethink it.

Jim: I think we maybe do have to rethink it. What hit me is that the learner now has

so much market power that they did not have before because information is free and

available through internet. Now it seems that we're really at the mercy of the market

power of the student, and I wonder how much of that power will drive the education

situation from one-size-fits-all methodologies. Will students start demanding the

kinds of things following their learning desires? They are persistent, initiative, and

resourceful.

Dr. Ron: It makes sense and particularly upper division kinds of things. Jim: That's where it could happen? Dr. Ron: Because if we go more to the English model of “I want to learn this area

really, really well,” I think that is very possible given the multiple means of learning

even if you just look at online, just textbook ancillaries online that students can use.

They are now expecting all of the Power Points to be put up on Blackboard.

Pedagogically. I'm not sure it’s the greatest thing in the world to do because they

think why do I have to pay attention in class? I'll just go back and read them online.

So I mean, I have not thought that far ahead, but I think in the next ten years, we are

going to see some major changes.

Jim: Is the sage-on-the-stage thinking in trouble because sources and availability of

information has changed?

159

Dr. Ron: But then I guess that's why I think: let's go learn these things together. I

think profs like Mark, going to Ireland with the 25 freshmen, really enjoyed that

different way of learning, because he said, "I was learning with them" or looking at

what he's talking about, faith and learning and liberal arts and why we learn as much

as anything, but I think he really enjoyed shared endeavor.

Jim: You are a professor and a psychologist counselor. Regarding Bandura and some

others in learning through social interaction, would Mark or somebody else who's

interested in learning have such an impact while learning with others more than they

might have had if he were standing up lecturing?

Dr. Ron: See Mark modified Foundations for the Irish kids. Now he still has the basic

information coming out in his new book, but he switched; he uses the three novels.

There he went to Lewis's Mere Christianity, of course, Lewis being from Ireland; and

then went to the Beowulf translation by Seamus Heaney which won the Nobel Prize.

He's an Irishman and used the monastic sites to look at faith and learning, and he just

used Ireland as he said. In his mind is the perfect place to show the development of

faith and learning and the liberal arts, and everything he does in Foundations, so he

shifted the activities of the class to fit the culture and being with the students engaged

in that culture, and that's what we're trying to do with all of our classes. But that's

something that you see I think from a very market-driven place is very appealing.

Jim: Now I understand why your Irish Studies program is really popular with

students.

160

Dr. Ron: Tom and Mark and I are planning on going for 10 days to take Mark's work

he does, Tom's work in history, and mine in culture because the three of us have

never been there together and actually go to all the places we visit and have our

dialogue in the car, as it were, on how each of our parts of our courses work together.

We can point forward to someone else's or point back, and we can truly understand

that process now that we've all been there with students. Since Tom's now been, and

Mark's now been, and I've been, and as we've been with students individually, the

next time we're with our students, we can interface better if we're still learning.

Jim: Is there more respect for students as learners there because they are kind of out

on their own? Do you think that's a false statement?

Dr. Ron: I think it's possible. I guess I don't know how aware of it I am. I think there

is always that sense of, wow, you're doing something different. It's out of the norm.

It's out of the comfort zone. I'm not sure, but they are having to take more

responsibility for their learning.

Jim: And that's exactly what I am really trying to see here. What is it that hinders

professors from giving autonomous learners that opportunity for learning?

Dr. Ron: A simple example is, you know, we are encouraged to "well, put all your

Power Points up on Blackboard"—No! Not that I want to keep it from them, but if I

put it up there on Blackboard, they will either not come to class, or if they're in class

because I require them to be in attendance, and they know it's going to be up on

Blackboard after the lecture is over, they're not going to take note one; they're not

161

going to think about the material. They're going to go look to rote memorize it, and so

I think we give them too much. That is my personal opinion.

Jim: And what about the opposite of that? What about asking them to bring their

learning into class? Ask them go out, do the research, look at the textbooks and

various kinds of things about a topic that is going to be discussed and bring that

information into class and then asking, "Okay, what did you find about this?”

Dr. Ron: You've got to work beyond the group dynamic that happens within that

setting. That I agree wholeheartedly, and it's not a long complex thing they've got to

study and come in with. You're asking some very straight-forward questions. They

don't have to know every nuance in this, but some straight-forward stuff: going to

what are you thinking about; how does it apply? Where does the faith come in? You

ask the basic questions, and as they are more comfortable with the material, they're

more apt to respond. I apologize; I'm supposed to meet my wife in about 2 minutes.

Jim: I think we're at a good stopping point. Dr. Ron: I've got to tell you the one assignment I do very similar to that is Cultural

Period projects in Ireland. This is the most fun thing I do. If I can find my DVDs, I

will show you some of them. It's either location or era, and it's the Christian monastic

era which was the 4th to the 9th century. They visit the places, and they'll visit

interpretive centers; they're taking notes from the tour guide, the interpretive center.

They'll write about them in their text materials, and we have decent library. Then, I

have a list of questions on the sites they go into it, like the monastic sites for example.

162

Then they respond to it, how these places have been influential in the development of

Irish faith and Irish culture, and what impact they had on them. And then what impact

does it have on you, personally, your faith, your development as a person, and put

that into a multi-media presentation as a group of five. And those have to be 4 to 6

minutes with an accompanying 12-page paper, a self-perpetuating multimedia. You

should have seen the stuff the freshmen did? The freshmen are all beyond

PowerPoint. They're turning in DVDs.

Interview with Dr. Bill

Date: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 Jim: I’m very glad that you're willing to do this, to talk about some things in contract

learning and I also want to talk about just working with the students.

Dr. Bill: Well Jim, it's good to be with you. I do a lot of radio interviews. Last

summer I was at Southern Evangelical Seminary with a bunch of graduates who had

their radio stations, and so we spent the day just doing interviews and you know, you

kind of sit around, you crack jokes, and. . . . Well, it's good to be with you and I'm

glad to be on the seeking the truth show with you today.

Jim: Let's explore this. So one of the things I want to explore with you is when you

consider your teaching philosophy, and since you are a philosophy professor, what

are the major points that you would hold very dear at the central core of that

philosophy, your teaching philosophy?

Dr. Bill: Okay, I think I understand your questions.

163

Jim: Okay. If you don't, ask me so I can rephrase it so it's a little better. Dr. Bill: I'm going to make a couple of points. Number one, philosophy is about

arguments. It is not about beliefs. Everyone has beliefs. Everyone has opinions. Many

people have truths. What philosophy is all about is the conceptual reasons why a

person may hold a belief. For example, Saint Thomas Aquinas was a 13th century

Dominican friar. He believed in God. Big deal. That's what they were supposed to do.

The interesting question is: "Why did he believe in God? Why did he think it was

possible for anyone to believe in God, and how did he relate his belief in God with

reason?" Okay? So that is what I mean that it is a matter of that philosophy. The

discipline is all about how does one support a belief, not the belief per se, which often

times is totally boring. I mean people, say sophists, talk about these totally

uninteresting things like if there is a reality. I mean yeah, you know we all think there

is a reality, but how do we support belief in reality.

Jim: Well, let me rephrase the question then. In the debate over teaching between

behaviorialists and constructivists, which side of the argument would you support in

your teaching? Or is it something else?

Dr. Bill: I think I know what a behavioralist is. I don't know what a constructivist is. Jim: Behavioralists would believe that truth and knowledge is something outside of a

person to be obtained by that person and could also be reinforced, so Skinner is a very

typical one that would fall into that. Constructivist goes clear back to Socrates, the

Socratic method to a Piaget, to some others that say, people do know, just give them a

164

chance to relate their experience to it, then they can learn because they do have this

kind of truth inside them. Is that clear?

Dr. Bill: Yeah, okay I understand the terms now. There is no way that any of my

students ever have or will come to class already knowing the transcendental method,

and all I need to do is reinforce what they know. It is something that they don't know

that they wouldn't know unless I told them that they have to learn by memorizing

what it is first and understanding it in other words. Of the two options you give me,

I’m totally on the behavioralist side. See the problem with the platonic idea of

knowledge as recollection as St. Thomas Aquinas says, "Is I don't recollect it." I told

you I would speak freely.

Jim: Yes, please do. Dr. Bill: I think it is silly! I mean there was a guy who used to work with the

Carnegie Institute speaking at a Lilly seminar I was at, and he said, "Just let your

students discover for themselves." I'm sorry; our students are not just going to

discover 3,000 years of western civilization. They are not going to discover Aquinas

and Bonaventure. They need to learn like everyone else.

Jim: So how would you respond then to those who say learning is a transformational

kind of experience that needs a reflection on the information and therefore, it changes

a person rather than learning through rote memorization that does not seem to change

a person?

165

Dr. Bill: In my course in Philosophy of Religions this semester, we are spending the

entire course applying the medieval method of the disputation, the debate. Last

semester, I was teaching metaphysics and I taught it seminar-style where the students

were in charge of presenting the information, and then we reacted to it and so forth.

So you see, what I said does not mean that learning is not an active thing. Learning

ought to involve as many aspects of our nature as we can bring in. People always

talked about someone they say was a visual learner, auditory learner. We all learn

best when all of us are involved. We hear. We speak. We see. We all learn

vocabulary. I mean theoretically, by having letters on the floor that we walk on, by

scratching terms with our hands onto sandpaper, you know, the kinds of things people

do with learning disabled children.

Jim: What about your past experience though, too, bringing that into there? Would

you discount that?

Dr. Bill: My experience? Jim: So if I'm learning some new word, and my past experience says, "Well I guess

I've had some Latin, I know a little about prefix, suffix, so bring that into bear to

understand a new word,” you would count that as being important to that?

Dr. Bill: Sure, sure, but all this presupposes that first of all, I have put stuff into my

memory. It's an ongoing building process, but somewhere along the line I can't do a

thing with the content until I have been given the content.

Jim: Then how did Socrates do what he did?

166

Dr. Bill: That's so silly, Socrates. Jim: No, I mean, why did he think that people knew the answers so he would ask

some questions and come up with it. Or am I totally off base?

Dr. Bill: No, that's exactly what he said he did, but if you look at his examples, it's

just the way it's been scripted. You know, he has this dialogue of he doesn't teach; he

brings out the geometry that the slave boy supposedly knows, and so he has him draw

lines in the sand. Then he comes up with the right answer, and he says, "See, this

totally uneducated slave boy already knew this and all I had to do was bring it out."

But it's like having a horse count in the circus.

Jim: Right. Dr. Bill: I'm afraid there isn't a whole lot of credibility in the way that it's portrayed. I

don't know if I can find the passage.

Jim: He was good at smoking mirrors, huh? Dr. Bill: Oh, absolutely! Jim: So how could you have a dialogue with someone about politics if they never

studied politics? Is that what you're saying?

Dr. Bill: Yeah, here it is. It's in the Meno and Socrates begins. He calls over this boy

in order to show him. He points to the square. It has all these sides, four equal. Yes.

167

And these lines which go through the middle of it also. Yes. Such a figure could be

large or small, could it not? Yes. But this side is two feet long and this side the same.

How many feet will the hole be if it were two feet in this direction and only one in

that? Must not the area be two feet at once? Yes. And so forth, so he asks all these

leading questions.

Jim: Right. Dr. Bill: Does this not give us an eight foot figure? Certainly, and the boy just gives

all the right answers.

Jim: But you're saying what Socrates does in the questions is actually lead by

information. He's giving information.

Dr. Bill: Yeah. He's getting the boy to say, “Yes.” Jim: I've often wondered about that because some people have taken constructivism

to the nth degree I think. Then it gets into kinds of relative truth, and you're just lost in

this morass of where is the truth then? How do you find that, where do you discover

that?

Dr. Bill: Yeah, and the interesting thing is that Socrates was trying to show the

opposite. He was arguing against the sophists who did hold a relatively strict view of

truth. So he was trying to say, "No, truth is firm, but it's something that we don't

discover outside of us. It is something that we find inside of us?" Unfortunately, the

dialogues just don’t work that way. But, don't take any of this to mean that I don't

168

appreciate what he's doing. I love Plato's dialogues because they are so funny, and I

think they are meant to be funny. I mean in that particular dialogue, Socrates starts on

one side with Meno on the other. By the time they are through, they have switched

sides and Socrates died twice. He died when he drank the hemlock, and then he died

when people turned him into this almost non-human, purely aesthetic kind of person.

He was funny. He was a rebel. He always had his "tongue in his cheek," and I think if

you don't understand, I think you just missed the point. You certainly miss out on all

the fun.

Jim: That's great. I'm learning quite a bit here. Thank you. Thinking about learners

and just learning for learning's sake, you have said that you have participated in

contract learning and some other kinds of things so that learners get some recognition

or some sort of credit for doing some research or some real learning. Do you want to

share a little bit about some things that you've done?

Dr. Bill: What happened was that I was really getting dissatisfied with my grading. I

would assign an essay, and then I would have to grade them, obviously. So how do

you do that? Well, this is pretty good, but there's one small problem, “A-.” This one

is almost as good, but has just two little problems, “B+.” So then I think each of

those problems isn't quite as big as the one problem was, so I just got frustrated with

trying to be fair and clear both to myself and students with what I was doing when I

was grading essays. I remember a student coming up and saying, "I don't understand

what you did here." And if I had been totally honest, I would have said, "I'm not

totally clear on it either." But there are a lot of times when there's no question but

169

what category or grade the paper falls into. Then others are so ambiguous. You know

it's not a perfect paper, and you know it's not a disaster, so I just decided to explore

different ways of grading. So I did some reading around. As I mentioned to you the

other day, I really enjoy the What You Get Game, the Grading Game in American

Education. Have you found that? Have you looked for it?

Jim: No. Dr. Bill: Actually, they weren't big on contract grading. They pointed out some

problems that I could surmount. And I think I did, because they made the contract

grading much more open than I would have been willing to do. So, basically what I

did was, I said, "In order to earn an A, let's say, you have to earn 18 points and

different kinds of assignments are worth so-many points and where the choice comes

into play is which ones do you want to do in order to earn your points for the course.

So, you can write papers, you can take tests, you can do reading reports." I was

teaching Bib Lit I at the time. One of the things that I had on my list was the little

study books by Irving Jensen. I don't know if you remember them. They take you

pretty nicely into the content of particular books of the Bible. Certain creative

projects were fine, and so you wanted an “A,” and let's say each project was worth

three points. Then you could stipulate what it is that you want to do in order to six

assignments done. Most people did some mixing and matching. If you take the tests,

you have to get at least, and I don't remember what I said at the time, 90%, 85%, a

pretty high number. If you did not get that number, you had one chance at a retake. If

you still didn't get it, you had to renegotiate your contract. Then there were similar

170

things with the other assignments. If you wrote a paper, okay let's say a 10-page paper

was worth four points, you would turn it in. I would read it and make comments and

so forth. If overall, I felt that you had done a good job, I would accept it. Most of the

time I would mark it up, and turn it back for a re-do. Then theoretically the student

would rework the paper along the lines that I had laid out and resubmit it. Then they

would get their points for it. So my job was to make sure that the assignments, first of

all, were turned in on a certain schedule, and then that they would be of sufficient

quality to be acceptable. As far as the scheduling thing went, it wasn’t easy, and so

you learn from your mistakes in that regard. See I would have to go back and look

through all my records very early on at least, if not the first time I did this then

definitely the second time. I had certain deadlines, so after 6 weeks, if you didn't have

work in, whether it be having taken a test or done a paper or whatever, then you

would be out those points. You couldn't get them back.

Jim: So people don't procrastinate and put it off? Dr. Bill: Yeah, because otherwise you end up getting six projects from a person.

That's bad pedagogy. I don't know. So that was one important thing. Then the other

problem and this is the one that turned out to be decisive for me to drop it again was

everyone was going for an “A,” which is fine, but that means everyone is doing lots

of work, more work than they would have if we were working under a regular

syllabus schedule. I would have to make sure that it's all of good quality. So I was just

spending every waking moment going through papers. It was for that reason that I

abandoned it again.

171

Jim: How many students were doing that? Dr. Bill: Well, for a couple of semesters at least I was doing it in all my classes. Jim: So that would be over a 100 and some probably? Dr. Bill: Easily. I was teaching a Historic, and a Contemp. Jim: It's a wonder it didn't kill you! Dr. Bill: Intro to Bib Lit I and yeah, it was. Jim: Would you consider doing that again with a smaller group? Dr. Bill: Um, not on that basis, no. I mean as I was mentioning to you, really, I'm

doing various creative different kinds of things now, but just a straight forward

contract grading along that line. No, I don’t think so.

Jim: So the number was a hindrance, but it wasn't the only hindrance. Dr. Bill: Well, it had something to do with it, but it wasn't so much the number as

simply as the work is tied to the number. But the thing that didn't work, I guess, the

monkey wrench was that the students were not realistic about what they could get

done. You know, just as I felt bad about my earlier more traditional grading method

when you have to tell a student, "Sorry, you can't get credit for this" and so forth.

When they had counted on getting that “A,” it seemed so easy, but those dynamics

weren't good either. So you know, a “C+” average student (we're talking about the

172

mid-80s) when our students were not yet of the quality they are now, thought that

they could get the “A.” I was talking to June on my way out, and I said, “You and I

were going to talk about the contract grading.” She said something along the line that

if I were going to do it again, I would have to make sure that students realize how

hard they have to work for an “A” or something along that line. And she said you will

understand that all of them see themselves as getting the “A.”

Jim: One of the things I've been wrestling with is how I, as a professor, and other

professors encourage students to take more responsible action for their own learning.

Or to put it another way, how can I give ownership for learning to students who really

will want to continue, who desire to do that? Who want life-long learning. Any hints

about what you've done, that you see that works and if not, what are some of the

things that prevent that from happening?

Dr. Bill: I don't know, take metaphysics last semester. I just dumped it on them. I

said, "Pick your day. This is the schedule. This is the article that goes with it." They

just came through; it was an incredible experience for me. They were doing graduate

school-level work, and they just rose to the occasion. Not everyone was happy with it

I'm sure, but that's the way it goes. I have a group of 17 philosophy majors of

unusually high capacity. That's very different from 50 students in a Contemporary

Christian Belief class.

Jim: Right and I think in that whole mix of things, you can include those that aren't

interested, but basically we’re talking about those students that really are interested;

they desire to get to know something more. I do this project called a learning

173

portfolio. In my syllabus are all of the topics, and I tell them, "Before you come to

class next time, here's the topic, and in this learning portfolio, there are three areas

that I want you to discover. One is research with at least five different citations with

people's various kinds of ideas; the second one is 'How would you consult with

someone; how would you tell them to do what is needed?' So much of ours is

practical application kinds of things, but 'How would you consult with someone else?'

and third, 'Does this have any impact upon your own faith?'" So they start doing these

papers. They are befuddled. "You're asking us to go out and do this?" "Yeah! You

bought the textbook. There's one reference. Here are some others," and then I try to

bring in some other aspects that I think they've not really gained. But what I try to do

there is to try to get them to take some responsibility rather than looking to me to be

the "sage-on-the-stage" kind of thing. "I think you could get it from your iPod, folks.

You can probably get better information other places. Why do I have to be a purveyor

of information? What do you think of this, or do you think it's not good? I'm totally

open."

Dr. Bill: I think if you are serious about teaching, you will never really be able to get

out of the role of purveyor of information. But, one does not exclude the other.

Jim: Here's what I'm asking. I have talked with some professors who feel like they

have a corner on the information and "only the information that I give the student is

the real truth. I enjoy this so much that I want to share it with you, but I really want to

give you a chance to play with the ball, so to speak. Watch me as a coach make the

free throw, and watch me do all of this. Then later on at the graduate level, you can

174

go play with the ball." Now, it's like how about letting them take some control, get

some experiences?

Dr. Bill: It's subject matter, like I said, they're not going to discover Cons

transcendental deduction.

Jim: But couldn't they go, and do research to find it? Dr. Bill: They could find the book. They could see the words. They couldn't

understand it. And I'm not talking about English translations. No, it's not there for the

plucking. I have to be the one to tell them about it, and explain it to them. You know,

I was talking to one of our colleagues a long time ago. We were in one of those

sessions at a consortium thing or whatever. It was one of those "say something bad

about the lecture method sessions," and you know it's these people who lecture on

what's wrong with lecturing. I was saying something along the line of, "What am I

going to do? They've got to learn what Spinosa says." And one of my Taylor

colleagues said, "Couldn't you just have them share how they feel about what Spinosa

is saying?" And, no, it's nothing that you feel about. I guess I have to confess that for

any number of topics, I really don't care how the students feel about it either. But

yeah, do I, even though I'm working on active learning? I have very active learning in

some of my courses. There is also a very clear limit as to what I want to hear. Let me

be really specific. I will even name names. Bill teaches his Alternative Foundations

thing. He has the students come in and he says, “Okay, so what do you think of the

doctrine of predestination?” So they have these debates. They don't understand it.

They don't know the Bible verses. They don't understand theological methodology.

175

You are just reinforcing emotion that when it comes to theology, anybody's opinion is

as good as any others. It's not. They are ignorant, and they need to be told. Then they

can start to debate and so forth.

Jim: What I am saying is that there has to be a foundation. There has to be some sort

of information base before you can even think about turning someone loose to do

research. Do you agree with this statement?

Dr. Bill: Of course, in our area of religion and philosophy, there's a whole lot more

presumption that anybody can come to equal conclusions, equally valuable

conclusions. They wouldn't necessarily feel that way about, I assume a marketing

class, or a history class.

Jim: It's not imbedded in their beliefs. Then it gets divorced from the argument. Dr. Bill: You know, I do understand that. I would assume that you run into some of

that too. Why do I have to take a course in marketing? I'll just show them our

products; make a cute commercial, etc.

Jim: Give me your best example of setting objectives, so students set to gathering

information. But they could not do it. I said look at what you put into this. It was

something I thought they researched. They wrote about how it could be applied and

even their spiritual thinking about it. I'm thinking that the assignment just did not

work real well. So then, one of the things I always do is I go over it and say, "Okay,

let's take a look at why these don't work." Where can we get better information, try

this. Do you think this is a good idea?

176

Dr. Bill: Percentage-wise, what percent of your students "Get it" the first or second

time as opposed to fulfillment in reality?

Jim: I think because they know that I have this expectation that they should get it, that

helps, but I have done it once and gone over it, maybe half of the student, no a little

bit more than half.

Dr. Bill: You are a phenomenal success. Jim: Seriously? Dr. Bill: Yeah! Jim: I've got a lot of good students. Dr. Bill: Yeah, sure. Jim: I've got motivated students. Dr. Bill: I would say that if it's not broke, don't fix it. Jim: I don’t know, but it just seems to me that since we are talking about serious

teaching, that this is not degree completion kind of stuff.

Dr. Bill: No, you know, I'm saying that because I know. This is serious teaching, and

if you're reaching that many students the first time you go through a cycle, that was a

totally innovative way of working through material. I'd say you are doing very well.

177

Jim: Okay, I tried something really weird here over J-term. I wanted to see some of

the constructivists thinking, okay? I wanted to see how the students enter into the

whole gamut from setting up the curriculum, to analyzing, to the end assessing. So I

thought, okay, I'll try it in a special topics course, Leadership in Business. I know

quite a bit about that now, so I have five sign up for this. Before it even started, I had

them come into my office. I said, "Okay, what do you know about leadership?" You

were right. Not a whole lot. So I gave them some information, sent them away and

told them to come back and tell me: "What do you want to learn? What do you want

to really study here?" So they came back, and they all had different ideas. I was

thinking, “Yep, I understand that.” So basically, I worked a collective independent

study with each one. We met as a group. I gave support, and one of the tests was that

we were going to go to New York City and meet some top business leaders. They

were to set it all up, show their leadership in the group, and work it out. We got to

New York City and it was like, "Aw man, what now?" First of all, I told them, "You

are responsible for everything. I am just going to sit back here." Well, we went down

to the subway, and none of them knew how to use the subway. I so much wanted to

say, "Okay guys, you take this side over here." But I just shut up and watched to see

what will happen because this was their experience. Do you know where I found

myself? Not trusting the learner that they had learned enough. I found it to be pretty

clear that they had not learned enough to get it through. But, on the other hand,

something said to me, "So? Don't you value failure in business?" I'm thinking, “Not

really,” but yet isn't that interesting because that is one of the questions you ask

people, "How did you fail, and how did you overcome it?" So in the learning process,

178

what do we do with failure? I don't know if there's any procedure, any routine. Maybe

it’s revisiting it, like you said, and allow the student to resubmit the paper. Allow

them to learn from it, and maybe there is some really good learning here. Well, okay,

we got through it, we learned a lot. At the very end, and debriefing this, the students

had to bring a portfolio, and show me that they learned all these various kinds of

principles and processes. I said, "This is like in a court of law. You have to bring

documents; you have to bring your substantive kinds of things and then, you'll see

how much learning and of what level, all that you accomplished." That was an

interesting thing, but I found if fairly hard. I could never do it with a large group, but

I found myself saying, "It's nice to turn the learner loose. They did learn a lot, but was

the learning always valuable?" I wondered about that without my leading, and the

other part is I don't know if I always trusted the learner to get what they needed to get.

There was still something there that said, "Not sure." Does any of that make sense?

Dr. Bill: Yes. Jim: It was a fantastic experience. Dr. Bill: I think if you have five exceptional students it might work. Jim: And these happened to be that. Dr. Bill: That is ideal. If you try to stretch it any further, that's what turned Parsons

College into Mahareshi University. You know the story, right?

Jim: No!

179

Dr. Bill: Oh really? Parsons College was a little Presbyterian college in Nebraska in

the 1960s, which decided that they were going to take a hands-off approach and

become totally student-centered. Exactly the kind of thing that you described. The

students set the curriculum and so forth, well North Central was not happy. The

school laughed their way through it and just lost accreditation. They went bankrupt

and the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was the transcendental meditation guy who was

looking for a campus. It became Maharishi University, and now it's Maharishi School

of Management. You should look into that!

Jim: Yeah, I can see how that would go. Dr. Bill: There is some empirical evidence that students being in charge these days

does not work.

Jim: But then I'm thinking, you know, as a business person, students today have a lot

of market power that they have not had in the past. Schools are being competitive for

students and so, might students move the kind of paradigms of this pedagogy into

areas more that they might like as opposed to "this is good for you; you really do need

to study this." Students might say, "No, I want it on my iPod, and I can take it

wherever I want, and I will choose schools like that." What do you think about that

kind of market trend in higher ed?

Dr. Bill: I don't know to what extent that's an issue in admissions and marketing the

school. Do they really ask those kinds of questions?

180

Jim: I think students want to have more of a hand in the education process, and

certainly, the parents are right behind them wanting to have a big say in the

educational process.

Dr. Bill: Hmm. Jim: You haven't noticed that? Dr. Bill: No, on our end, there would be almost the opposite direction. The parents

who are concerned would be concerned that we are dispensing the orthodox version

of the story, not whether they're doing active participatory learning. I don't think it

comes out too much on this side.

Jim: Okay. Just going quickly going through the list: What do you do with the learner

that is really quite good? You know, our outstanding ones who have huge desire;

they're persistent, they're resourceful; they make good decisions about their

education. How do we help them succeed? How do we help them when they seem to

be part of the masses? Is there anything special that you do for them when you notice

them, or they come to your office and ask about certain things?

Dr. Bill: You know something that I've done, and this would kind of be an extreme

version of this, but the course in logic that I teach is fairly advanced compared to

others. I have it still lined up with math majors who are still an entire quantum leap

above the rest of the students. So, the last time was the term before this. I caught on

that there was a student who was really sharp, no problem with his deportment, but

obviously he was just so much more capable. I talked to him after the class and asked,

181

"Would you like to do some different kind of work? Would you like to use a book

that takes all of this one step further?" and so forth and so forth. I let him do his own

thing for awhile, and as the course got further, it was no longer familiar territory to

him at all. He stopped the extra work, and fell in step with the rest of the class. But,

so yeah, I have been known to do that.

Jim: I guess now that raises the question: Does one-size-fits-all kind of education

then, you know, make it difficult for the person that really wants to achieve when

we're trying, especially in General Education courses just to get everybody's interest

on a level and get things going? Then we've got all these others.

Dr. Bill: Well, I guess the wise student learns that he's going to have to learn some

things that don't interest him particularly. He is going to be under-challenged in some

courses. That's why I was asking about percentage earlier, because I never expect to

get 100% connected with the entire class. It's always going to be a fraction.

Jim: Does anything else come to mind about giving the learner more responsibility,

about releasing some control for the learning to the student? Any thoughts come to

mind?

Dr. Bill: No, and frankly as you can probably tell, I'm about out of thoughts. Jim: That's fine. Dr. Bill: My big General Education courses course is Contemp. As a matter of fact, I

am doing stuff now that I've never done before, and I've taught that course for 27

182

years. I began, and I have done this now for the last five semesters, I think. I begin the

course by asking, "What are the major obstacles to Christian faith? Complete the

sentence: I could accept Christianity as true if:" And to some extent the answers are

predictable. To a large extent, they are exactly the kind of stuff that is in the textbook,

but this semester, I got more of the world religions kinds of questions than ever

before. If Christianity could be found to be true as opposed to other religions kind of

thing, so I have spent more time on that than I ever have. There are a couple of other

things that I added to the course as a whole because they have come up in that setting.

They are not in the book, and I hadn't thought of it.

Jim: That's terrific, I'm glad. Dr. Bill: So, come to think of it, because I was just looking at the fact that, you know,

of all the many responses that there were more occurred on that issue [Christianity vs.

world religions] than there were before. We had a really fun debate on that topic

yesterday.

Barriers to Autonomous Learning

Autonomous learners may experience barriers to at least four areas that define

their existence such as desire, initiative, persistence, and resourcefulness. Other

barriers can also exist, which prohibit the autonomous learner from learning

autonomously.

Desire

Regarding autonomous learners’ desire, Dr. Sam believed that students’ desire

might translate into university policies that are “consumer-driven” (personal

183

communication, February 10, 2006). Some professors expect self-motivated students

behavior solely based upon the professors’ expectations as expressed by Dr. Amy and

Dr. Rick, who thought that the students’ desire for learning was caused by the

students’ identification with the professional development attributes associated within

their major. Dr. Ben believed that motivation for learning evolves into a “compulsion

on the part of the student to become part of what we're [the professor and classroom

activity] doing” (personal communication, February 10, 2006). Some desire may be

offset by the anxiety of students to present ideas in class, substantiated by Dr. Ben,

who believed that students may exhibit “anxieties that are more likely as far as

engagement”(personal communication, February 10, 2006). Almost all of the faculty

members viewed the evidence of student desire to be found in the willingness of the

student to interact in conversation with the professor. Most of the professors did not

believe that the students’ desire for learning should exist outside of the professors’

own desire and plan for the students’ learning. One exception, Dr. Rick, allowed

students’ to negotiate for learning goals that represented the students’ desire (personal

communication, February 9, 2006). Two professors, Dr. Ron (personal

communication, February 14, 2006) and Dr. Jane (personal communication, February

13, 2006) expressed that he and she would not work with a student if the students’

desire for learning a particular item was not congruent with the professors’ interest

and own desire for learning on a particular topic. Dr. Ron did not think that he could

help or supervise student learning outside of his comfort zone in regard to his

particular expertise level. He would not support a desire for learning by one of his

students unless it matched his expertise level; however, there is a sense that once

184

students are interested in the knowledge base that interests faculty then most faculty

would respond like Dr. Ron, “Let's go learn these things together” (personal

communication, February 14, 2006).

The desire for learning was often equated with classroom attendance. Dr. Ron

stated that he observed motivated students with various desire levels by whether

attendance rises and wanes based on whether he gives a quiz. The faculty members

assumed that students with high desire for learning will attend class; yet, Dr. Ron uses

a fixed schedule of quizzes based upon behavioralist ideas to keep attendance levels

high (personal communication, February 14, 2006). Dr. Amy uses administration of

quizzes to students as a means to get full attendance in her classes (personal

communication, February 13, 2006).

Resourcefulness

Most professors thought that they were the conveyance of information and

resources for all students. In taking this responsibility of teacher-centered activity,

two professors expressed vulnerability. Dr. Sam exclaimed that he did not want

students asking any questions and did not want to look foolish: “Asking me a

question and making me look like a fool” (personal communication, February 10,

2006). Dr. Sam thought that information technology was not that helpful for students:

“Blackboard (resource software) or whatever tool you use, it's still, nevertheless, very

limited” (personal communication, February 10, 2006). Dr. Sam thought that

autonomous learning is not possible with every discipline: “It is subject dependent”

(personal communication, February 10, 2006). Dr. Bill believed that only scholarly

experts devoted to “teaching that with the subject matter itself has the sense of purity”

185

can interpret knowledge and are needed for learning (personal communication,

February 10, 2006; personal communication, February 15, 2006). Dr. Sam echoed

what Dr. Ron said, “I believe that it is, depending upon the subject matter, it is

absolutely necessary to meet face-to-face” (personal communication, January 10,

2006; personal communication, February 14, 2006).

Many professors talked about role modeling learning through research. Dr.

Ron talked about role modeling of learning with shared investigation and “shared

development of thinking;” however, this was the same professor that would only

supervise independent studies if the topic interested him (personal communication,

February 14, 2006). Dr. Ron stated that, “I want to be a resource person,” and he used

the term “share information” several times (personal communication, February 14,

2006). Several professors along with Dr. Ron, such as Drs. Sam, Jane, Bill, and Rick,

expected the learner to share the outcome of their research with the professor.

Some professors such as Dr. Amy and Dr. Bill thought important active

learning meant providing as many resources as possible for the various ways those

learners assimilate learning from touch, to visual, and to sound. Dr. Amy equated

many resources with keeping the attention of learners. Many professors, specifically

Dr. Jane, thought that the aim of education is to “master the same rudimentary body

of knowledge,” while paying attention to the source of information—the professor

(personal communication, February 13, 2006). There was a sense from some, Dr.

Rick and Dr. Amy, and echoed by Dr. Ron, that “we give them [the student] too

much” information instead of giving the responsibility for research to the students,

while Dr. Sam and Dr. Bill disagreed (personal communication, February 14, 2006).

186

Initiative

Initiative in learning exhibited by autonomous learners may reach a conflict

stage of confrontation, which according to Dr. Sam could result in “challenging the

authority of the professor” (personal communication, February 10, 2006). Dr. Bill

believed that autonomous learners may make decisions based upon unreasonable

goals and may expect an unreasonably high grade without the ability to achieve that

grade (personal communication, February 15, 2006). Dr. Bill did make a provision for

renegotiating with autonomous learners in learning contracts. He did not understand

their decision-making process that resulted in students writing more research papers

than first thought by the student (personal communication, February 15, 2006). The

students’ initiative did not match the professors’ intention, which created unexpected

outcomes of more work for the professor in grading and interaction with the students.

Consequently, Dr. Bill stopped the process of offering learning contracts.

Most professors related that one of the prime aspects of teaching was the

ability to motivate students’ ability to choose with initiative. Some professors used a

consequence, such as missing a quiz, to insure that students would choose coming to

class, a technique used by Dr. Amy and Dr. Ron.

Dr. Jane suggested that professors should get a response from autonomous

learners who may think, “She’s allowing me the freedom” (personal communication,

February 13, 2006). It appears that Dr. Jane grants freedom to make choices outside

of the classroom.

187

Persistence

Most of the professors interviewed expressed the idea that they needed to

foster persistence in the students. If learners did not persist, then the educational

system failed or the professor failed to help the student. Dr. Amy commented that she

has to “help them be successful” (personal communication, February 13, 2006). Dr.

Ben commented, “But we also have to understand that developmentally we should be

moving them as juniors and seniors way beyond that initial stage of research”

(personal communication, February 10, 2006).

Nothing was mentioned concerning the student choosing to quit of their own

volition, which casts the professor as the prime factor. According to Dr. Ron, little

recognition of autonomous learners’ ability to test out of basic courses causes them to

take undesirable “basic courses, and they quit” (personal communication, February

14, 2006). Nothing was mentioned in any of the professors’ interviews about learning

situations when students fail. Dr. Amy did state that “no student wants to fail”

(personal communication, February 13, 2006), but nothing was stated about what to

do with students who fail or chose to quit.

Teacher-Centered Ego Routines

Teacher-centered teachers fail to recognize the legitimacy of the autonomous

learner and their learning. Dr. Sam believed in “teaching them as far as the profession

is concerned” as a professional devoted to the discipline (personal communication,

February 10, 2006). “I talk,” said Dr. Sam (personal communication, February 10,

2006). Dr. Sam admired experts and large amounts of knowledge. He liked the library

because of the visual representation of large amounts of information. He held the

188

learner in his hand as evidenced by his statement, “If you show me that you can do

that, then I can release you” (personal communication, February 10, 2006). The

autonomous learner has no opportunity in Dr. Sam’s classroom to show anything of

his or her own learning except answer questions on a test or perhaps give a

presentation. Dr. Sam declared that, “I would not like ownership by students” for

their learning (personal communication, February 10, 2006). “I do not like

questioning authority” (personal communication, February 10, 2006). Dr. Sam is

teacher-centered. He continued, “I differentiate very, very clearly where I think I am a

subject matter expert or where I've got some experience in the subject matter,” so Dr.

Sam does recognize the importance of theory and experience in teaching (personal

communication, February 10, 2006).

Teacher-centered routines among the professors interviewed called for

students paying attention and coming to class. Since class is the source of information

provided by the teacher then attendance is important. Dr. Amy will give superior

grades if a student attends and reads the “easy material” and pays attention. Dr. Amy

stated, “Attendance is key” (personal communication, February 13, 2006).

Textbook as Teacher

Another barrier is not only the teacher as expert but also teachers believing

that the textbook is the final word providing expert information for autonomous

students. Dr. Rick and Dr. Sam believed that learning should follow the outline of the

text. Some professors like Dr. Bill (personal communication, February 15, 2006),

believed that they can interpret a book for “ignorant” students, while others like Dr.

Sam (personal communication, February 10, 2006) believed that “I like the way I

189

present stuff” and may use ancillary presentations provided by the textbook company.

According to most professors interviewed, teachers lecture because they want the

students to get the information necessary to prepare those students for success in a

profession. All of the professors thought it was their responsibility to provide the best

information possible. Dr. Jane (personal communication, February 13, 2006) and Dr.

Rick (personal communication, February 9, 2006) pointed to their accreditation board

in the disciple, which monitors their students’ knowledge of the discipline as another

reason to give information. Information flows from the professors’ expert knowledge

or a particular text for the benefit of students’ learning. Yet, some students do not

understand the lecture or the text as indicated by Dr. Bill (personal communication,

February 15, 2006).

Teachers Give Little Respect to Autonomous Learners

Teachers may ignore respecting students through subtle comments. Dr. Sam

said that he “prepare[s] kids for the world” (personal communication, February 10,

2006). These are undergraduate learners, who belong to a different generation than

Dr. Sam. Likewise, Dr. Bill called his students, “ignorant” (personal communication,

February 15, 2006). They need him to translate what they are reading in philosophy.

Problems with Assessment

Assessment plans are being developed by governmental officials on the

federal and state level from the impetus of the federal No Child Left Behind program,

which may increase from P-12 grade to P-16 according to Dr. Ben. Further, Dr. Ben

commented that the upcoming mandated assessments are built on the idea that a

group of elite scholars meet together and determine what should be learned and how

190

it should be assessed (personal communication, February 10, 2006). Learners have no

input regarding assessment.

Dr. Bill discovered that he was given an impossible task of measuring the

assessment of contract learning papers when students asked about objective

guidelines of measurement. Dr. Bill abandoned the project when too many papers

flooded his desk and created a problem of managing the process for over 50 students.

He did not have time available to grade the overflow of papers that students were

producing to get credit necessary to fulfill the learning contract to get an "A" grade

(personal communication, February 15, 2006). Dr. Ben believed that efficiency of

time will prevent professors from trying what Dr. Bill discovered as very time

consuming: following individual learning contracts for autonomous learners.

Graduate School Influence upon Undergraduate Teachers

Dr. Sam related his physics graduate work as exacting and laden with much

information. As he valued information then, he values it now in the classroom, giving

vast information to students. Professors, Dr. Rick, Dr. Sam, Dr. Jane, and Dr. Ron,

indicated that their graduate courses and interaction with professors modeled for them

how a class should operate. They use the teaching style of professor as sage-on-the-

stage--an expert relating information to his or her students is evidenced by professors

passing on the oral tradition of communicating information to students. Dr. Rick

stated that he thinks that values inculcated into the course he teaches comes from his

exposure to such a course in graduate school. As a learner, he was given some

freedom to learn, and he wants to continue the model of teacher-facilitator, which he

enjoyed. Dr. Amy said that her idea for giving responsibility and control in a

191

structured environment came from a model she witnessed in graduate school. She

uses some of the same techniques she experienced in graduate school to provide for

students to take control of the classroom and course. Dr. Ron commented, “So I want

them to walk away with a notebook of resources that they can use someway, in some

fashion. And even in my training at Ball State, in my doctoral program, in our

portfolio before we went on internship, part of the portfolio had to be workshops that

we would create to teach technique to other people” (personal communication,

February 14, 2006).

Behavioralist Routines of Teacher Control

Dr. Ron stated that he utilizes a Skinner reinforcement technique: “a fixed

interval schedule routine” to affect attendance (personal communication, February 14,

2006). Dr. Sam would not consider giving control to students because they would not

know what to do with the information base that centers the learning in his class. Dr.

Bill called himself a behavioralist in that he must be in control of the learning event.

Many of the professors think that it is their responsibility to control the learning to

provide help for students. Dr. Amy believed that helping students is necessary for the

students’ success. The word help, in various forms, was used a total of 52 times

during the professor interviews. Each professor used the word help. This university

lauds a faculty who care about students. The forms of care observed in the classroom

were helps to understanding the information for learning. For example, help is

evidenced by professors answering questions of the class members. For some

professors, like Dr. Jane and Dr. Ben, answers to questions would involve strategies

192

to engage learners, while Dr. Sam and Dr. Bill would think it helpful to explain the

material of instruction.

Communication Style

Dr. Sam did not like students asking questions that he might not know. Dr.

Rick asked students to talk and ask questions. He thought it important to “be a

genuine enough person” (personal communication, February 9, 2006). Dr. Ben

believed that investigation and recognition of a student’s background is necessary to

communicate effectively with that student. Dr. Ron uses direct communication to

foster learning and especially likes the face-to-face time in learning discovery. Dr.

Amy uses communication to convey her expectations for the learners and give them

an idea of her standards for success. Her classroom observation data highlights that

she uses many gestures and change in voice projection to keep student interest at the

beginning of a rehearsal. The word give was used a total of 80 times in the interviews,

and all professors used the word, give. Contrast that fact with the point that no

professors used the word receive in the interviews. Professors have the mind set of

giving—communicating information—while some included giving students a means

for success, which involved students learning the basic knowledge. Examining all of

the interviews, only Dr. Amy used the word listen. She was referring to listening to

music, “We all listen” (personal communication, February 13, 2006). She knows how

to listen with a critical ear and insight.

Educational System of Pedagogy

Dr. Ben spoke concerning the one-size-fits-all education: “I think that level of

engagement ought to be more common, but in an American-style system which is not

193

unlike an assembly line system, it's not always likely that that level of engagement

can occur, as desirable as it is” (personal communication, February 10, 2006). Dr.

Ben made a point about state educational standards: “Those standards will be

transferred into this multi-multi-billion dollar educational testing, California testing

empires, and so just like an assembly line, we're going to say, okay, well here's where

you are. You're taking a sophomore-level, you're taking a 100-level history course in

U.S. History, and what do you know in comparison to everybody around the country

knows who's taken this course?” (personal communication, February 10, 2006).

The above barriers provide high hurdles that some autonomous learners

cannot leap over no matter how resourceful, persistent, initiative, or desirous of

learning they might become. On the other hand, constructivist leaders recognize and

provide conditions welcomed by autonomous learners. Constructivist ideas take

considerable requirements in time and a personal investment in students, which some

professors indicated in their interviews that do not have to give or cannot give

because of class size or load.

Constructivist Leaders’ Attributes and Actions

Constructivist leaders provide ways for autonomous learners to exercise

control of the learning situation while experiencing the conation of desire, initiative,

persistence, and resourcefulness in obtaining their learning objectives.

Desire

Dr. Amy believed that students come to the learning situation with a desire for

learning as she stated, “Nobody wants to fail” (personal communication, February 10,

2006). Dr. Amy believed that students come to a learning situation with the desire to

194

learn and become successful in that endeavor. Dr. Bill believed that autonomous

learners given a learning contract exhibit desire for learning by producing a large

amount of output.

Resourcefulness

Dr. Rick (personal communication, February 9, 2006) and Dr. Jane (personal

communication, February 13, 2006) supported giving learners an opportunity for

exploring issues and “ask[ing] them to bring something back in the next class” was

important. Dr. Rick also believed that learners take on not only the knowledge, but

also the beliefs and values incorporated into the course; therefore, Dr. Amy believed

equipping learners for resourceful living requires for her to give a set of values and

incorporates those into her instruction. This is accomplished by “spend[ing] quite a

little bit of time with our students” says Dr. Rick (personal communication, February

9, 2006). Dr. Rick and Dr. Amy invite students to their particular home.

Technology is helpful to student engaged and exposed to resources as noted

by Dr. Ben, posting to a Blackboard discussion, which may unearth some student

anxiety but the value of engagement with the topic is worth it (personal

communication, February 10, 2006). Dr. Amy responded favorably about learners

using the internet to get information. According to Dr. Ben, understanding knowledge

provides a level of achievement and ownership especially in a narrow the topic so that

it's achievable. He believed that students are resourceful and can “identify resources”

(personal communication, February 10, 2006). Dr. Jane believed that “expanding the

knowledge,” which is important “means looking up in books or on the internet or

195

interviewing somebody or writing about my personal experience” (personal

communication, February 13, 2006).

Initiative

Dr. Rick believed that “giving them [autonomous learners] more control over

their lives in areas of beliefs such as social justice” was important, since the students

will soon have to demonstrate such control themselves after graduation (personal

communication, February 9, 2006). Dr. Rick also believed that “goals that are as

much as possible measurable” become necessary for the autonomous learner to

succeed (personal communication, February 9, 2006). Dr. Rick allows for the student

to set the goal; however, Dr. Rick gives feedback on goals that are difficult to

measure, because initiative occurs with goals that are measurable than with goals

which are not measurable. Dr. Rick honors the students’ choices and engages the

student based upon the students’ choices of goals to achieve during their practicum.

“This is really up to the student,” emphasized Dr. Rick (personal communication,

February 9, 2006). Similarly, Dr. Ben believed that students should be “taking

personal control for development of knowledge,” and he included faculty by stating,

“We all have to be very intentional” concerning learning (personal communication,

February 10, 2006). Decision-making with initiative is important to Dr. Amy as she

relates that values need to be taught in the course. In agreement, Dr. Rick stated,

“Students bought into it [learning situations] by being able to make choices” show

empowerment (personal communication, February 9, 2006). Dr. Ben also talked in

the interview of making the class such that students desired to enter into the

discussion.

196

Persistence

Most of the professors interviewed expected the learners to persist in life-long

learning with Dr. Rick exclaiming that “60% to 70% of our students will get graduate

degrees,” and Dr. Rick believed that students can be “goal-directed and do stuff on

their own” (personal communication, February 9, 2006). Dr. Amy relied heavily upon

the assumption that “nobody wants to fail;” autonomous learners will persist in

learning (personal communication, February 13, 2006).

Giving Respect

The constructivist leader acknowledges respect for autonomous learners in

actions. Dr. Rick called for learners to “be a genuine enough person” (personal

communication, February 9, 2006). He wants students to engage in self-evaluation to

monitor their own progress on goals and objectives. He does not take a parental role

but wants to help learners achieve a professional level of understanding not only of

others but also of themselves. Dr. Rick, and particularly Dr. Amy, stated that they

interact with students in a way that “we are living with them” (personal

communication, February 13, 2006). Dr. Amy also uses student presentations: “We

get to know them and that this presentation becomes their moment” (personal

communication, February 13, 2006). Dr. Amy indicated that she values students by

stating, “Nobody wants to fail” (personal communication, February 13, 2006). Dr.

Amy believed that “all learners are worthy of respect, while providing a fair and safe

place for learners” (personal communication, February 13, 2006). Dr. Ron travels

with his students, and student contact is necessary for him to learn with students and

197

promote their engagement with the body of knowledge. Dr. Sam has one or two

students who are exemplary, and he interacts with them as long as they initiate the

interaction. Dr. Sam in the past has given devotions in various men’s residence halls.

Dr. Ben meets with students to talk after class: “a student or me initiating a

conversation somewhere else on campus” (personal communication, February 10,

2006). He stated, faculty must show “respect for the student as a learner,” and “part of

that respect involves my recognition” ( personal communication, February 10, 2006).

Dr. Ben believed that it is necessary to “identify the personal connections” to the

material, and he views his role to “see ourselves more as coaches” (personal

communication, February 10, 2006). Dr. Ben believed that “student engagement

ought to be the norm” (personal communication, February 10, 2006). Respect is a

major factor for Dr. Ben, who said, “And so if I am going to be effective

communicating the information that they need to know and giving them a chance to

master the skills that they need to master, I've got to know as much as I can about

who they are before they come and respect that; even though they may be

dramatically different in terms of the background that they bring to the class”

(personal communication, February 10, 2006).

Assessment for Learning by Autonomous Learners

Dr. Rick and the pilot study indicate that students are capable of self-

evaluation when given a goal or objective to meet. Dr. Rick allows students to set the

goal and stated that professionals need to know how to self-evaluate. Dr. Rick stated,

“That’s one of the reasons we have gone to using learning contracts because the field

of social work is emphasizing more teaching students to be able to evaluate their own

198

practice. In other words, to be able to look at themselves and evaluate how they are

doing because social workers often work individually and independently” (personal

communication, February 9, 2006).

Discussion Groups and Presentations of Learners

Dr. Rick utilized student discussion with the professor as moderator/teacher.

Some discussion groups ranged from “discussion classes” to “class discussion” time

set aside. Discussion classes were moderated by Dr. Rick as seminars for learning,

“so it is kind of an integration piece with taking what is going on in the field with

what they've learned in textbooks or in class discussions or lectures or something like

that” (personal communication, February 9, 2006). Professors differed on the amount

of freedom that was given to students in discussion situations. Many teachers teach

because they love learning such as Dr. Sam , Dr. Rick , and as Dr. Ron related, “I

want them [the student] to know” (personal communication, February 14,

2006).Teaching provides for personal learning that is why Dr. Amy, Dr. Jane, Dr.

Bill, and Dr. Rick use student presentations as a means to facilitate learning. Yet, Dr.

Ron stated, “You have got to disseminate the information” (personal communication,

February 14, 2006).

Giving Information

Although most of the professors exhibited a communicative style of controlled

giving of information and working with it, they did show concern for the student.

Some professors, such as Dr. Sam thought that successful students were a result of

and reflection of his good teaching. Some professors like Dr. Ron liked the presence

of students and did not like online learning situations. From the interview with Dr.

199

Amy and Dr. Rick, it seemed that they were very open to students. Both professors

invited students to their home for discussion groups or for officer meetings and

rehearsal sectionals. Dr. Amy used an approach to communication that none of the

other professors used. She communicated the standard for performance to her student

officers, who in turn communicated with students. Dr. Amy related that she did not

have to make negative comments during rehearsal: “I've got a lead team. I've got it

built in so that I'm just the final person looking on so that the officers are all doing

that [various responsibilities such as getting the music, etc]. You see. So, it's really

student run” (personal communication, February 13, 2006).

Various Techniques to Promote Learner Ownership

According to Dr. Rick, when students set their own realistic goals and reflect

on the progress of attaining those goals, students gain ownership for their learning.

The practicum experience of field work provides a context for students to realize

professional expectations. Dr. Amy utilizes a well-defined structure of boundaries and

then allows the students to run the program for learning. She is thinking of using the

model utilized in choir for teaching General Education music appreciation. Students

can choose the music they want to analyze and then give presentations, which

showcase their own learning. Dr. Jane teaches constructivism but modifies it because

of the time requirement necessary to enact it; however, she does give an assignment

in which students develop a constructivist learning module. She utilizes a

constructivist role modeling during this experience for the students. Dr. Ben is

mindful to provide opportunities for students to connect to the material learned

through the students’ previous or present experience. During the classroom

200

observation, Dr. Ben was lecturing on colonial American war and was asking the

class for similarities to the present Iraq War. Dr. Ben is concerned that students get an

application of knowledge for understanding their present world. While in Ireland, Dr.

Ron gives students an active learning project to interview Northern Ireland citizens,

which gives students an opportunity to seek out answers to their own questions

concerning Northern Ireland problems. Dr. Sam makes the information as attractive

as possible to students sitting in rows of desks, while Dr. Bill gives the students a

chance to debate the issues surrounding a particular religion. Concerning the

successful attempts at shifting responsibility for learning to autonomous learners, Dr.

Rick and Dr. Amy believed this occurs when students actually learn something of

their choice.

Summary of Analyzed Data

Using the software, Atlas.ti the Knowledge Workbench, with a

phenomenological approach, provided a means to analyze professor interviews,

interviews with some of their autonomous students, classroom observations, and

syllabi. A pilot study was used to initiate constructivist leadership routines that the

interviewer has not previously used or experienced. This gave the interviewer some

insight into the variables surrounding the utilization of constructivist behaviors,

which would allow for the success of autonomous learners in their quest for

knowledge. Several issues were highlighted: professor giving control to students,

students’ awkward acceptance of control when not accustomed to taking control for

learning, professor’s trust increasing and waning concerning learners, and the

cooperating and coordination of setting learning objectives and assessments.

201

The seven professors interviewed for this research exhibited various ideas

concerning teaching and facilitating learning. They gave their stories with conviction

and passion. Each one is dedicated to teaching undergraduate students and has done

so for a number of years. The interviews reveal many helps and hindrances that

autonomous students may experience. The professors tended to polarize in terms of

creativity and allowing control of learning by the learners. Some professors were

threatened by the idea of learners taking control, and some professors thought it a

good idea to prepare students for future life-long learning.

The hindrances highlighted by the interviews and documents were limitations

to autonomous learners in their exercise of desire. Some professors would only work

with students if students matched their research to the desire of the professor.

Professors pointed to attendance as an outcome of desire for learning on the part of

students. Initiative was limited by some professors. Professors did not like students

making choices other than what the professor chose. Professors viewed their role as

motivators so that students chose the professor’s process of learning. Persistence was

barred in the opportunity of students to test out of basic courses. The result often was

that students quit as a result of having to take courses beneath their learning ability.

Professors took the role of helping students succeed whether the student requested it

or not. There was no mention in any of the interviews about what to do with failure of

students to complete work or to assimilate knowledge in a class. There was no

remedy for failure of students. Professors presented barriers to students becoming

resourceful or exercising their resourcefulness. Some professors did not like internet

usage for research, while some thought that shared research was fine as long as the

202

student researched what interested the professor. The seven professors’ interviews

highlighted additional hindrances that may not directly impact one but a combination

of autonomous learners’ desire, initiative, persistence, and resourcefulness: teacher-

centered ego routines, teachers’ learning important, textbook as teacher, teacher

disrespect of students, assessment problems, graduate school models for teaching, and

behavioralist routines of teacher control. On the other hand, the seven professors’

interviews with coding and network analysis revealed that constructivist leadership

routines were utilized in some of the professors’ classrooms and in their design of

learning events. These constructivist leadership attributes and actions provided an

opportunity for autonomous learners to take control of their learning through their

exercise of desire, initiative, persistence, and resourcefulness. Additional aspects to

benefit autonomous learners came to light in the research: giving respect to learners,

allowing for assessment for learning by autonomous learners, realizing influence of

graduate school, and hosting discussion groups of learners.

The professors’ interviews, classroom observation, and artifacts provide a

reasonable data base for giving a forthcoming reasoned discussion related to this case

study. The discussion ensues from the story of seven professors teaching

undergraduate students, some of which are autonomous learners at a Christian liberal

arts university in the Midwest of the United States.

203

Chapter 5 – Discussion

In this chapter of the research study, a discussion will ensue focusing on the

research question in light of the descriptive findings obtained from the transcendental

phenomenological qualitative approach. This discussion focuses on particular

insights, relationship to prior research, theoretical implications, and unanticipated

findings, which provide significance of the case study findings. The focus of this

research centers on the hindrances that constructivist leaders encounter when

facilitating or planning a learning event involving autonomous learners. The primary

research question in this dissertation is the following: What hindrances do

constructivist leaders experience in undergraduate institutions when facilitating

learning for autonomous learners? Another question of a lesser nature but germane to

this study involves whether selected professors manifest constructivist behavior.

Other questions follow: What does the institution do to promote or encourage

constructivist leadership? What do constructivist leaders need in order to believe that

they are supported in their endeavor to espouse constructivist principles and

techniques? What do autonomous learners desire from constructivist leaders, and to

what extent would professors allow for shared power and shared control by

autonomous learners?

As outlined in chapter 3, this research investigated a case study of professors

teaching at a Christian liberal arts university. They may or may not be constructivist

leaders, and they may or may not present barriers to learning for autonomous

learners. Regarding the case study, this research utilized a qualitative perspective of a

phenomenological methodology attempting to discover the events that prevent

204

professors from supporting the aims of autonomous learners in desire, initiative,

persistence, and resourcefulness to achieve learning goals. This case study relied

upon interviews with professors, classroom observations, interviews with selected

professors’ autonomous students, and artifacts such as syllabi. Seven professors were

interviewed, and their taped interviews were transcribed for analysis by qualitative

codes, families, and network facets by utilizing Atlas.ti computer software.

The seven experienced professors interviewed for this research exhibited

various ideas concerning teaching and facilitating learning. They related their stories

with conviction and passion, indicating that they were dedicated to teaching

undergraduate students. The interviews described many helps and hindrances that

autonomous students may experience. Professors Sam, Ron, and Bill were threatened

by the idea of learners taking control of the learning situation, while professors Rick,

Amy, Jane, and Ben thought it a good idea to give students control and responsibility

for learning, which benefits the students’ future professional life with life-long

learning.

Specifically, the hindrances highlighted by the interviews and documents were

described as limitations to autonomous learners in their exercise of desire,

resourcefulness, initiative, and persistence. Some professors would only work with

students if students matched their research to the desire of the professor. Professors

pointed to attendance as an outcome of desire for learning on the part of students.

Initiative was limited by some professors. Professors did not like students making

choices other than those the professor chose. Professors viewed their role as

motivators so that students chose the professor’s process of learning. Dr. Ron related

205

that students’ persistence was damaged by the high difficulty level set by professors

in making the CLEP test, which barred students from testing out of basic courses.

Consequently, some students quit the basic course and transferred from the college as

a result of having to take courses beneath their learning ability. While some students

were expected by professors to not pass a difficult CLEP text, some professors took

the role of helping students in learning no matter the situation and whether the student

requested help or not. While reviewing the interviews an insight occurred: no mention

was made in any of the interviews about what to do concerning failure of students to

complete work or failure to assimilate knowledge in a class. There was no remedy for

failure of students. Professors presented barriers to students becoming resourceful or

exercising their resourcefulness. Some professors did not like internet usage for

research, while some thought that shared research was fine as long as the student

researched what interested the professor. The professors’ interviews provided

additional hindrances from those mentioned above that impacted a combination of

autonomous learners’ desire, resourcefulness, initiative, and persistence such as:

teacher-centered ego routines, teachers talking with little listening, textbook as

teacher, teacher disrespect of students, assessment problems, graduate school models

for teaching, and behavioralist routines of teacher control. On the other hand, the

seven professors’ interview analysis displayed in coding and networks that

constructivist leadership routines were utilized in some of the professors’ classrooms

and in their design of learning events. While behavioralist classroom teaching

methodologies presented hindrances for autonomous learning, constructivist

leadership attributes and actions provided an opportunity for autonomous learners to

206

take control of their learning through their exercise of desire, resourcefulness,

initiative, and persistence (Lambert, 2002). When considering implications for

practice, additional aspects to benefit autonomous learners came to light in the

research: giving respect to learners, allowing for self-assessment by autonomous

learners, realizing influence of freedom to explore in graduate school, and hosting

discussion groups of learners. Constructivist behaviors of professors provided some

areas of benefits for autonomous learners, which were noted in the interviews and

observations; however, behavioralist actions were also noted in the interviews and

observations.

In this qualitative phenomenological case study, looking at the particular

findings and grouping them into families of themes and networks for inducing

insights may prove fruitful (Moustakas, 1994). Ten significant themes derived from

the findings provide the basis for the following discussion: (a) giving and telling

information, (b) listening, (c) existing ego needs, (d) learning places, (e) assessing

learning outcomes, (f) preparing for teaching autonomous learners, (g) enjoying

learning, (h) administering educational policy, (i) learning in active or passive mode,

and (j) balancing action with reflection. Suggestions for further research appear at the

end of this chapter.

Constructivist Leaders and Behavioralism

The research findings from this study were comments made by professors,

who thought that they would not grant control of learning to autonomous learners. Dr.

Sam would not consider giving control to students because the students would not

207

know what to do with the information base that centers the learning in his class. Dr.

Bill called himself a behavioralist in that he must be in control of the learning event.

According to Walker (2002), behavioralism calls for constructivist leaders to

“calibrate behavior to achieve set learning objectives and goals” (p. 11). Walker

suggested that behavioralism appears in leadership literature when reading about

“transactional leadership” exchanging rewards and shaping workers’ behaviors to

reach stated goals (Burns, 1978). Glasser (1997) suggested that some constructivist

leaders hesitate to give students control because of behavioralism. Under this

philosophy, the emphasis may center on goals rather than on the learner; therefore, a

constructivist leader operating under behavioralism could be observed fulfilling his or

her own goals for the course (H. B. Long, 2002). As the above literature suggests, I

found that I could not identify any given professor interviewed as purely

constructivist or purely behavioralist. The professors interviewed demonstrated some

aspects of behavioralism, while at other times gave evidence of constructivism

applied to undergraduate classes in which autonomous learners’ attend. Since

Lambert (2002) contrasted constructivist leadership with behavioralist routines, I was

surprised to find a mixture of constructivist and behavioralist actions by professors;

however, Hiemstra and Brockett (1994) cautioned about polarization in categorizing

faculty. Especially regarding instructional design, Hiemstra and Brockett supported

the idea that the professors interviewed would be better served for identification by a

continuum line between behavioralist and constructivist at either pole. Dr. Sam

thought that discipline specificity seemed to dictate whether constructivist routines

could be found in a particular class. For example, Dr. Sam’s music appreciation

208

course could utilize constructivist ideas as opposed to computer operations, which Dr.

Sam teaches (personal communication, February 10, 2006). The discipline specific

comment among others led to the realization that all of the professors highly regarded

their discipline along with its informational base and knowledge.

Giving and Telling Information

An analysis of the research data revealed a theme that all professors thought it

important to give the students information. The emphasis first was upon giving. This

took several forms such as giving help, giving a reason for attending class, giving

assignments; however, all of the giving behavior related to giving information. Dr.

Bill (personal communication, February 15, 2006) and Dr. Sam (personal

communication, February 10, 2006) indicated that professors give information as

their job. Dr. Sam was asked the question whether it was better to give a student the

means to fish rather than give a fish. This was in an attempt to understand Dr. Sam’s

attitude toward self-directed learning. Dr. Sam responded that giving just the fish is

fine. Further, he did not like “homemade” items such as self-directed research. Dr.

Sam believed that only experts can develop the information, and autonomous learners

should be given the information (personal communication, February 10, 2006).

Conversely, to give resourceful learners everything that they need seems to usurp the

need for any resourcefulness or at least hampers its development. Dr. Ron stated that

professors give too much information (personal communication, February 14, 2006).

Yet, giving information to students was a prime concern of faculty interviewed.

Reviewing all of the classroom observations revealed the theme that almost all

of the class time was spent by the professor lecturing. About 15 minutes into the

209

lecture, I counted in all of the observed classes that at least half of the class members

were not paying attention to Drs. Ron, Bill, Ben, and Jane. Although Dr. Ben made an

effort to connect to students and their present lives in revealing correlations to

familiar demographic background, many students were not listening. The information

given to students was replicated from the textbook. During the class time, the

observation revealed that most professors allowed for spontaneous questions from

students and took time to answer the students. Dr. Jane pointed out that giving

information is necessary for students to understand new material; however, higher

levels of thinking on Bloom’s taxonomy exist and can be performed at higher levels

of student engagement. None of the professors asked the students in class to give any

synthesis of their learning concerning the information. Giving students opportunities

to hone their resourcefulness skills is important. Resourcefulness concerns the ability

of the self-directed learner to gather and assess the internal plus the external resources

needed for a learning experience (Carr, 1999). Matthews (2005) posited that

constructivism stresses understanding as the purpose of education which presents a

major paradigm advance over rote learning in traditional classrooms.

Ownership for Learning

Faculty accustomed to imparting knowledge “into” students might think that

their role under constructivism changed for worse and that makes them powerless

(Weimer, 2002). Another hindrance for some constructivist leaders may occur in role

modeling learning and knowledge. Learning involves initial doubts and after

considerable thinking then eventually ownership (Fullan, 1985). With faculty

demonstrating their ownership of expert knowledge, little recognition was given in

210

class or noted in interviews when students were given the same opportunity to

demonstrate their ownership of the knowledge. Interviewed professors assumed that

students do not grasp or do not take ownership of course material; therefore, it is no

wonder that students do not take an interest to own the knowledge to go beyond the

information given because often there is no clear purpose or reasoning. If professors

solely continue to give information, it is evident that students then will continue to

have lethargic interest in the topic. Or resourceful students may go to other venues for

the information to pass an exam. If students are allowed to own the knowledge, then

learning might change their lives in meaningful ways. Foucault (1980) pointed out

this problem of experts solely owning information and calling for reformation of an

educational system and empowerment of all students. Yet, not all autonomous

learners are ready for such a dramatic shift.

Autonomous Learners Hesitant

From interviews with a sampling of autonomous learners from interviewed

professors’ classes, all of the learners used the word vague when asked about

constructivist routines, which professors utilized such as self-directed research

assignments. The learners were nervous about the professor’s assessment of their

work. Autonomous learners were high achievers and wanted to maintain their

excellent grade point averages to obtain admission to graduate school. The learners

wanted to know what was expected from them and how it would be assessed. Dr.

Amy commented that her expectations for the students made all the difference in their

learning level. "Students will rise to the challenge" was the idea conveyed by Dr.

Amy (personal communication, February 13, 2006). H. Long (personal

211

communication, October 19, 2005) indicated that students not ready for self-directed

learning may prove an obstacle to professors wanting to give more control for

learning to autonomous learners. I asked the autonomous learners why they felt

uncertain and not confident in taking control of their learning. The major theme in

their comments was that they were not prepared or did not have any prior experience

for such an undertaking of responsibility for learning. Another group also exists.

Missionary children, who have experienced the British educational system, are

usually ready to take control of their learning. Some classroom experiences were

designed by interviewed professors to give all students various forms of control for

their learning.

Participation in Position

Dr. Amy utilizes a unique approach to participation. She gives students

positions with titles. For example, during the observation of her teaching the choir, a

student was requested to give the devotional; that was his position, and he did well.

Other students discharged their roles in clockwork fashion. Dr. Amy related that she

gave job assignments to students with titles such as public relations person to clean up

person. “Everyone is given a job,” said Dr. Amy (personal communication, February

13, 2006). This gives students responsibility and ownership for the learning in the

class. Dr. Amy indicated that this idea is also practical since she does not have to do

all of the work (personal communication, February 13, 2006). I asked if this would

work in a traditional classroom setting. Dr. Amy thought that the idea was intriguing

and started to think how it could be accomplished. She commented that students

giving presentations do some of the same things of giving responsibility and

212

ownership for learning to students. “This is their moment,” said Dr. Amy in

supporting the learner to give a presentation about what they learned (personal

communication, February 13, 2006). If a student does not get the information correct,

Dr. Amy joins in the presentation and helps the student to continue giving the correct

information. Lambert (2002) asserted that the constructivist leader will redistribute

power and authority by relinquishing power from formally held positions and evoke

power from others to create a work situation of shared responsibility. The problem

which Dr. Amy encountered when considering implementing her plan for everyone to

have a role or job in a traditional class was the size of the class. She said that she

would find it difficult to assign 55 different jobs to class members. The number of

students in a traditional classroom setting seems to limit the idea of giving students

particular roles in the learning process.

Presentations

Dr. Rick stated that, “We have them [students] do speeches on the sort of

figures who are significant to social welfare; in the practicum, we have them do

speeches. We require a speech, and that is really pretty wide open. They can go into

the community to do a speech or talk about what their agency does. They give

speeches about the results of their research project and so on” (personal

communication, February 9, 2006). Dr. Sam would only allow presentations if

students knew the basics in the course and if he approved the topic for the student

presentation (personal communication, February 10, 2006). Dr. Ben said that “I

encourage students to tackle topics about which they have some personal connection

or some sense of identification. Then they narrow the topic so that it's achievable

213

within the time frame, and they pursue a topic that they are personally interested in as

opposed to just a topic that is suggested by the authors of the textbook” (personal

communication, February 10, 2006). These three examples given above and taken

from professors’ interviews demonstrate how those professors utilize student

presentations to develop professional knowledge, to disseminate the information

agreed to by the professor, and to encourage students to connect with the information.

A potential hindrance may exist in this area when faculty members are unwilling to

give up class time to students giving presentations.

Discussion Groups

Dr. Ben related, “In the big sociology courses like Ethnic and Minority Issues,

those kinds of courses, they're now going with 75-80 students in a class, because

there's a scale of efficiency, and then they divide the class into smaller discussion

groups. But it's much easier; it's much more efficient for the university's resources to

have an instructor who's lecturing to 70 students or 75 students than to have that

instructor delivering that class to two or three sections of 20 or 25 or 30 students, so

the push is there” (personal communication, February 10, 2006). Discussion groups

developed because of efficiencies, not necessarily because of better learning

conditions. Certainly, the individual autonomous learner may not get an opportunity

to share their learning and may feel lost in this condition.

Yet, Dr. Rick utilized student discussion with the professor as

moderator/teacher. He stated that some discussion groups ranged from “discussion

classes” to “class discussion” time set aside. Discussion classes were moderated by

Dr. Rick as seminars for learning, “so it is kind of an integration piece, taking what is

214

going on in the field with what they've learned in textbooks or in class discussions or

lectures or something like that” (personal communication, February 9, 2006).

Professors differed on the amount of freedom that was given to students in discussion

situations. The class that operates like a seminar embraced only seniors who perform

practicum experiences. Many discussion groups were teacher-centered with the

students referring to the professor for ideas. Some professors allow small discussion

groups to form themselves, talk, and report back to the larger group as suggested by

Dr. Jane. The pilot study of this research revealed that students were not always ready

to share ideas until a solid trust was built with each other and the professor.

Discussion groups that do not support truthful situations and ignore aspects of

members trust may present hindrances to autonomous learners.

Constructivist leaders facilitate learners’ access to learning. Not only do

learners create meaning and understanding, but they also have narratives to share. The

value and use of narratives in education is substantiated by research (Brunner, 1994).

Group discussion is only as profitable as the leader facilitating the group discussion.

Utilizing Student Questions

All of the professors interviewed expected students to ask questions in class;

however, the class observations revealed that Dr. Ben and Dr. Bill were visibly

annoyed that the questioning continued, and they still wanted time to convey

information to the class. The questions were not solicited by the professors. Dr. Sam

was horrified at the thought that he would go into a class and just answer student

questions (personal communication, January 10, 2006). The Socratic methodologies

were not mentioned by the professors except to Dr. Bill, who believed the Socratic

215

Method of teaching to be a joke (personal communication, February 15, 2006). The

pilot epoche study utilized questions to stimulate student learning and discussion. The

questions asked of the autonomous learners needed to be calibrated to the students’

learning or silence reigned. Some students during this time did say that they did not

know the answer or have an idea. So the questions started with ascertaining what the

learner knew and where to go from that point. Since the professor asking the

questions knew an extensive amount of knowledge, he was tempted to ask questions

that were far too advanced beyond the students’ learning. Students did ask questions,

which sparked the interest of the professor; however, it was tempting for the professor

to give too much information without some reflection. So about half of the

information was given, and then the students were asked to research more and bring

that learning with them to the next class.

Talking Group

Lambert (2002) suggested that a constructivist leader may utilize a talking

group methodology, which provides for student participation. The pilot group did

utilize the talking group methodology. Members in the group were asked to tell the

truth no matter the consequences and were given the right to tell their truth to each

other or pass in silence. As some students would relate later, telling the truth provided

trust in one another and the professor. The routine of checking in, giving evidence of

learning in their work, and relating future work with assessment progressed until the

end of the course. The group members helped each other with resources and their

learning, which was relevant to the particular member’s need for learning. The group

members became facilitators of each others' learning.

216

Listening

Constructivist leaders actively listen rather than keeping control of the

learning event by dominating the time with speaking (Lambert, 2002). While

constructivist leaders may facilitate learning by giving experiences special meaning,

Lambert posited that the constructivist leader as facilitator of learning will engage in

conversations with autonomous learners that result with the facilitator listening

respectfully. Lambert suggested that learners reflect and demonstrate respectful

listening when the constructivist leader facilitates and models learning.

Careful listening by facilitators of learning demonstrates respect for the

learners’ thinking. Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, and Smith (1994) described this

intense listening as “the art of developing deeper silences in yourself, so you can slow

your mind's hearing to your ears' natural speed and hear beneath the words to their

meaning” (p. 377). Listening carefully requires the purposeful pursuit of meaning

beneath the words—listening for the contribution in each other's speaking rather than

for the assessment or judgment of what is being said. This deeper level of listening

asks listeners to set their thoughts aside while they attempt to understand the message

from the speaker's point of view (Wald & Castleberry, 2000).

Regardless of the admonishments of theorists like Senge (1990), the faculty

interviewed did not display any inclination to listen to students while in the

classroom. Dr. Ben did say that he respected students and needed to know their

backgrounds to connect with them, but he did not include listening as an important

ingredient to teaching autonomous learners.

217

Not listening to learners may show little respect or recognition of learners,

which may present barriers to autonomous learners. Without listening, empowerment

fails according to Thomas (1997), who stated that listening “brings us back to the

concept of epistemological empowerment that we found reflected among the students

involved in longitudinal research” (p. 120). In the learning environment of

autonomous learners, Zimmerman (2002) stated that as constructivist leaders, the

following listening actions should be utilized:

With a quiet mind, we can focus deeply on other voices,

searching for themes and ideas, finding boundaries and

intersections, and seeking out frictions and incongruities. In

response to others, we employ our linguistic abilities to restate,

inquire, or add to what we hear; we encourage others to listen

and converse, building the group understandings as we go (p.

89).

Senge et al. (2000) added that those utilizing listening in facilitating learning

should remember to paraphrase, to empathize and to accurately summarize concepts

and problems.

Leaders’ Self Importance

Some leaders in the classroom may ignore diversity because of ego needs.

Wheatley (1999) stated, “Only as we’re engaged together in work that is meaningful

do we learn to work through the differences and value them” (p. 149). The

constructivist leader will not only provide for shared experiences in social situations

but also provide for a safe place for respecting diverse beliefs. The findings, which

218

describe self-importance routines of professors was surprising at a Christian

university which values and promotes altruistic behavior above self; however, the ego

routines may have been related to over confidence in expert knowledge. Depending

upon the person, doctoral programs at prestigious universities engender a kind of

elitism among academic experts. Dr. Sam admires experts in various disciplines;

consequently, he expects his students to laud him as the resident expert in his

discipline. Students did not seem to be bothered by experts with large self-

confidence; however, they did not like autocratic professors who lead the learning

situation with routines that were teacher-centered, which did not allow for any student

input or discussion during class. Under these classroom conditions, autonomous

learners may be hindered in their pursuit of learning. The professors interviewed,

such as Dr. Amy (personal communication, February 13, 2006) and Dr. Ron (personal

communication, February 14, 2006), believed that the classroom is an important

learning place for learners in an undergraduate university.

Site of Learning

Constructivist leaders may choose to facilitate learning through social activity.

Manz and Sims (2001) suggested that the facilitator of learning, the constructivist

leader, take role modeling seriously in social learning situations by “practicing self-

leadership, physically and mentally, and doing so in a vivid and recognizable manner

that can serve as a model for others” (p. 61). Dr. Amy emphasized several times that

the learning place, mostly the classroom in undergraduate education, needs to be a

safe and fair place (personal communication, February 13, 2006). The interviewed

professors communicated that learning occurring in the classroom was of prime

219

importance. Consequently, some professors took attendance. For example, Dr. Amy

gave quizzes in such a way as to punish students for missing class, and Dr. Ron

utilized a fixed reinforcement schedule of quiz giving to condition students for

attendance. Professors tended to dismiss as minor the learning that occurred outside

the classroom. Yet, the professors’ various syllabi revealed that many assignments

given to students and completed outside the classroom assume some objective of

learning. This fact contrasts with professors’ believing that students should listen to

information given only in the classroom. Use of portable iPods and other technology

with professor’s lectures on an iPod creates the possibility that the place of learning

may occur outside of the classroom. Online learning is an example of learning away

from the classroom; however, at this university campus, online learning courses have

not been fully developed. Yet, Blackboard technology has developed means for

students and faculty to post comments in electronic group discussions. Dr. Sam did

not like this technology, saying, “I don't care how much chatting you can have with

Blackboard or whatever tool you use. It's still, nevertheless, very limited. I believe

that it is, depending upon the subject matter, it is absolutely necessary to meet face-

to-face” (personal communication, February 10, 2006). There needs to be a

recognition that learning can occur away from the classroom and without the

professor. For the autonomous learner who is resourceful, the classroom is only one

source of information to choose from among many. Students frequently use the

internet for research and seek out other students to further learn a concept. Several

students talked with students who had a particular professor as teacher last semester

220

and found out information for research papers such as format and approach, which

got good reviews from that particular professor.

Yet, professors are needed to assess that learning, which has occurred away

from the classroom. Dr. Bill quit his contract learning with students’ research away

from the classroom because of assessment problems.

Assessing Learning Outcomes

H. Long (personal communication, October 19, 2005) posited that assessing

learning would be a leading hindrance which professors would experience in giving

control to autonomous learners. For example, Dr. Bill eliminated a learning contract

program which would benefit autonomous learners. Dr. Bill used a complex system

that produced a volume of written student work to be assessed. In addition, Dr. Bill

did not have exact parameters for determining the difference between grades, which

provided for some fairness in grade determination.

The epoche section highlights a different story from Dr. Bill’s experience. The

course involved students’ input regarding assessment methods, which were placed in

the course syllabus. The assessment of learning was developed and shared through

various rules agreed to at the beginning of the course between students and the

professor. This program did not take extra work of grading a multitude of papers

since the papers made up the portfolio, which was graded. Major evidence was made

clear by the students’ presenting the portfolio and then orally defending the material

with their rationalizations from learning. The assessment process did take time to

review the portfolio, listen to the oral defense, and then deliberate over the evidence

for an appropriate grade; however, it was not a large burden such as experienced by

221

Dr. Bill. Yet, this experience involved only four students and not the large number of

students in Dr. Bill’s experience.

Assessing learning from the perspective of a coach should be the aim of good

teaching, according to Dr. Ben (personal communication, February 10, 2006). So that

assessment need not become a barrier for faculty wanting to facilitate autonomous

learners, facilitating small groups of autonomous learners is the ideal situation. When

considering implications for practice, involving students in setting course objectives

and methods of assessment proved beneficial to the professor and to the autonomous

learners. Creativity was important in this process.

Preparation for Facilitating Learning

Ponton (1999) defined initiative as active goal-directedness in problem

solving and initiating an action. Likewise, H. B. Long (1998) introduced the postulate

that self-directed learners can take initiative in many ways to learn, and some are

negative for constructivist leaders such as self-directed learners choosing to ignore

instruction or choosing to accept weak surface learning. Ponton posited that

independence, based upon an individual’s personal will to learn, reveals initiative’s

importance to the pedagogy of self-directed learners (Boyatzis, 2002). The research

findings describe faculty who were highly influenced in their teaching methodology

by their graduate school role models. None of the professors interviewed actually

studied constructivist ideas of andragogy or pedagogy except for Dr. Jane. She knew

and taught constructivist theory; however, she said that she rarely used it. The reason

given was the extra time constructivist methodologies took, and she did not have

extra time for teaching all of the material required in her course. Dr. Jane also did not

222

like to give the extra energy necessary for setting up research and experiences

necessary for completing a constructivist module. She liked her present routine of

teaching the course and did not want to change it to incorporate constructivist ideas.

Something else was missing besides the lack of training of professors for teaching

autonomous learners: an enthusiasm for learning.

Enthusiasm for Learning

From the tone and body language of the seven professors’ classroom

observations and interviews, several instances highlighted promotion of enthusiasm

for learning among students. Dr. Amy did talk enthusiastically about the class as one

where a student succeeds; however, the tone was more like a mandate than cheering

on a runner in the last stretch of an athletic track event. Many, if not all, professors

demonstrated a passion for their discipline and craft of teaching. Yet, none really

conveyed a joyous attitude toward learning such as the example given in chapter 1 of

the English professor, John Keating, a main character developed by Kleinbaum

(1989), asking students to march to their own cadence outside in the courtyard while

reciting a poem to better understand meter. This story character highlights that

learning situations can be joyous: students experiencing joy in learning and a teacher

with joy witnessing students’ in the learning process.

All of the professors except for Dr. Jane used humor in the classroom, which

was welcomed by students; however, I found no joy on students’ faces while learning

in the classroom. According to Lambert (2002), constructivist leaders facilitate the

learners’ expectation for varied and unpredictable pleasant outcomes in their learning.

These surprises may constitute an internal routine of positive reward. Manz and Sims

223

(2002) suggested that learners will develop, with the aid of a leader, an independent

internal routine of rewards for their varied learning outcomes. Without any joy in the

learning process, it may be difficult for professors to give control over to autonomous

learners. Yet, infusing joy into the learning process might be the place to start. In the

interviews, it was indicated that the chapel speakers were once boring without the

input of a student selection group. When the chaplain switched modes of operation to

giving a student group responsibility for determining speakers, boredom among

students attending chapel turned into joy with an influx of more students attending

chapel services on campus.

Administrative Policy

A hindrance experienced by Dr. Sam was the administrative policy to limit

professors supervising independent studies (personal communication, February 10,

2006). Another limiting factor is that some professors do not get paid for supervising

independent studies, but do get paid for supervising practicum experiences. The

practicum experience is usually work-related as an internship, while the independent

study usually centers upon a research topic or a course taken, like an Oxford tutorial.

Independent studies performed at this Christian liberal arts university tend to take

more supervising time than practicums. Professors are reluctant to supervise an

independent study even with an autonomous learner. Administrative policies also

hinder giving control to autonomous learners by increasing class size.

Dr. Ben said that administrative people push for larger class size with

discussion groups to capture more interaction with professors. Dr. Ben told of

administrative efficiencies requiring larger class size in conflict with small size

224

classes that promote learning (personal communication, February 10, 2006). Dr. Ben

continued, “I think that level of engagement ought to be more common, but in an

American-style system which is not unlike an assembly line system, it's not always

likely that that level of engagement can occur, as desirable as it is” (personal

communication, February 10, 2006). Lambert and Gardner (2002) posited that

constructivist leaders must “buffer, navigate, and mediate between state and national

mandates and constructivist principles of learning and leading—advocating for policy

change and waivers when needed” (p. 190). Dr. Ben described in his interview the

impending mandates coming not only from the university but from state and federal

government, which may hinder the learning of autonomous learners and make it

difficult for faculty to give control to those learners.

Action Learning Experiences

Meyer (2001) created a construct to better understand the autonomous

learners’ desire to learn. Meyer’s construct consists of three elements: basic freedoms

(understanding of circumstances and issues of expression), power management

(group identity, growth and balance, and love issues), and change skills (basic

communication skills and basic change behaviors). According to Candy (1992),

constructivist leaders were seldom identified as significant stimulators of people’s

desire to learn. Action learning experiences, as indicated by Dr. Rick in the practicum

course, allowed basic freedoms of choice by the student. Yet, other courses did not

allow for freedom of choices by students, and in the case of students choosing to

write for points, Dr. Bill found the experience frustrating and overwhelming in work.

225

Reflection Time

According to Lambert (2002), constructivist leaders facilitate the learners’

desire for reflection and metacognition to construct knowledge. Only Dr. Rick, out of

six other professors, mentioned in the interview the fact of recognizing the need for

students to reflect upon their learning. According to Derrick (2000), persistence is

linked to volitional control as exercised by the self-directed learner to obtain success

in his or her learning experience. Volition requires self-reflection and maintenance of

internal goals for any needed correction of effort (Corno, 1994). Derrick suggested

that some students demonstrate self-awareness, selectivity, self-directedness, and goal

setting that “facilitates persistence in learning” (p. 23). Students and faculty both

expressed the fact that they enjoyed little time for reflection on what they were doing.

Students felt stretched with many activities to choose from, and similarly faculty

expressed being stretched by responsibilities with little time to reflect. It appeared

that reflection about learning was a luxury and not a necessity in the classroom

experience afforded by professors.

Leadership in Learning Needs Balance

Modern technology and market power of autonomous learners may change the

present overall job description of a leader in learning, the professor. Constructivist

leaders can offer some help in changing the present nature of interacting with

information and students. Autonomous learners need role models that give evidence

of reflection upon learning information to process it into knowledge. This research

revealed those major themes given the hindrances that constructivist leaders find in

moving control and responsibility for learning to the autonomous learner.

226

The autonomous learners are usually among the best of students but unwilling

to compromise their learning strategy for boring lectures as witnessed in some classes

taught by the professors interviewed. This should sound an alarm for those

institutions and professors who continue to embrace prescriptive teaching routines

such as lectures only. Some would point to the traditions of learning, which hold to

the oral tradition of passing on information; however, a venerable educational

institution like Oxford University does not rely upon the lecture method but relies

instead mostly on the tutorial method for learning. The western tradition of

educational curriculum, which requires a vast broad surface knowledge acquisition,

may not serve advanced learning. The idea that someone has to know a great deal of

everything to prepare for a specific discipline is analogous to setting off a nuclear

bomb to drill for oil. Oil will be destroyed in the process. How many times has the

boredom of unrelated courses depleted the joy of learning from students? Some

would defend teaching large amounts of information to keep up with the current

explosion of information and its availability in almost every discipline. Because of

the rapid increase in information and new knowledge, it is exceedingly difficult to

know all the body of information in a particular discipline, so experts confine

themselves to very specific endeavors of discovery. Yet, they want their students to

acquire a broad range of knowledge. Using this strategy, few students will acquire

enough knowledge to challenge the thinking and especially the spoken word of the

experts. Constructivist leaders would admit that they do not know all of the

information, but they are willing to facilitate the learning of those interested. If

leaders in the classroom hold to prescribed teaching routines, they run the risk of

227

becoming redundant or worse, irrelevant. Students will soon have the capability to

listen on iPods to the lectures of faculty from all over the world on a particular topic.

Will professors who lecture be willing to compete in a student market with other

colleagues from prestigious institutions who will sell these lectures like textbooks?

There is the possibility of redundancy, and worse the isolated professor will be found

outdated and irrelevant to students’ need for learning. A partial answer to this

dilemma is already in place for many universities: require more independent studies

in which the student takes control of learning and works with the professor in a

tutorial capacity.

Regarding the overwhelming ownership of the subject matter, another balance

is needed in facilitating the learning of autonomous learners: a need exists for a

decrease in behavioralist leadership teaching methodologies to increase constructivist

leadership facilitation of learning methods. University alumni refer to their school as

their alma mater, nourishing mother; however, it appears in this research that higher

education often does not act as a nourishing mother. During the classroom

observations, I heard and witnessed information being foisted upon student’s

innumerable times. The agenda for the class time was to give students information

often not connected to the students’ world of understanding. Professors want to inject

information into the world of the student without really knowing how the information

creates meaning for the student. Constructivist leaders demonstrate the opposite aim:

seeking to understand the learner as a respected person. Additionally, professors did

very little active listening to students; some ignore the student and continue giving the

information at a rapid speed, which infects the cognitive regions of the mind.

228

Professors appear to like the power and authority associated with the classroom

exercise of demonstrating a dominant knowledge. Some professors need to change

the paradigm of class time experience to include constructivist leadership

methodologies that listen to students and receive learning from them. Constructivist

leadership ideals will help professors become open to students and vulnerable

because during the interaction with students, the professors might need to reveal that

they do not know the answer. Mutual discovery in learning may prove a valuable

technique in facilitating learning for autonomous learners. A big measure of this

balance is to make learning more affective in relationships with students. This is

difficult with large numbers of students, yet Dr. Amy does this with 50 or more

students. We need to figure out ways to go beyond teaching as a conveyance of

information to one of listening and conversing about the information at hand, thereby

learning together. A dance of learning facilitation needs to occur in which the

interplay of learning partners is respected and enjoyed. It will be difficult for some

professors to give up the prima ballerina position; however, for the sake of future and

new professors, it is necessary for them to experience a balanced model of learning

that not only gives information but also receives knowledge. During learning

conversations, reflection needs to occur to provide some time for making meaning.

Time and reflection is needed to make meaning for learning. University policy

often forces learners into a semester long time of learning. The obvious reason for

this seems to be that most professors are paid by contract for academic years divided

into semesters. Yet, learners acquire learning in different ways and time periods;

however, the learning delivery system calls for a given standardized quantity of

229

information to be learned by all students over a given time frame. Autonomous

learners might acquire learning more quickly than the usual undergraduate. Tuition

dollars would not be lost if a student pays for individual courses. Technology makes

this possible away from the traditional campus setting and that is seen in many of the

for-profit educational universities. These universities employ a large number of

online professors who may have different job descriptions than the traditional tenured

campus professor. However, speed in acquiring information may not benefit learners

without some time for reflection. Constructivist leaders may give some curricular

help to facilitate learners in personal reflection. Yet, there is a need for role modeling

the reflection process, which provides for transformational learning. Professors in this

study did not relate to students the process for arriving at certain conclusions.

Oftentimes those conclusions were missing from the classroom lecture and only

information was given. Professors need to become vulnerable in showing the thinking

process that influences their ideas. Students will not be indoctrinated unless the

professor requires students replicate their thinking; instead students will be able to use

the process of making meaning for their own learning.

Suggestions for Further Research

As a result of this research, three areas of further research endeavors are

suggested: utilizing constructivist leadership behaviors in relationship to learners,

changing roles of the professor in the university setting, and investigating

environments that support autonomous learning. Regarding utilizing constructivist

leadership behaviors in relationship to learners, Airasian and Walsh (1997) suggested

that more research is needed in the area of constructivism especially concerning the

230

role and activities of the facilitator. Research should be conducted to determine if the

academy benefits from requiring, through accreditation, that doctoral programs teach

andragogy and constructivist leadership to potential professors. Research needs

developed to understand hindrances in training and development utilizing

constructivist leadership within business settings.

Another area of research needs to investigate the changing role of the

professor in the traditional university setting. It would be interesting to interview the

professors mentioned in this study over a period of time to see if any of the interview

conversation would differ from the first interview regarding attempts by professors to

engage and facilitate learning. Since many professors rely on the lecture method of

delivering learning, research is needed that compares the lecture method of conveying

information to other delivery systems. In addition, researchers should investigate the

small supply of new doctorates to meet the large impending demand for people with

doctorates in higher education to see if a crisis in traditional learning delivery systems

will emerge. An interesting research study would investigate if professors used active

listening as a means of facilitating learning, and if so, how it was accomplished.

Another research question involves the classroom time spent with the professor as an

effective and efficient venue for learning.

Further research needs conducted in investigating environments that support

autonomous learning. A research question of importance to study would investigate

whether students would support andragogy replacing pedagogy in higher education

institutions. Research studies need to investigate how professors can best use their

time in facilitating learning at various levels of knowledge acquisition by autonomous

231

learners. Further research investigation is needed to understand what type of

classroom or other optional experiences are best learning situations for autonomous

learners. It would be interesting to investigate any correlation between Kohlberg’s

model of moral choice development to the autonomous learner model of learning

choices in maturation. More research needs to be conducted to reveal how the

educational system can accommodate and promote autonomous learners.

232

References

Airasian, P. W., & Walsh, M. E. (1997). Constructivist cautions [Electronic version].

Phi Delta Kappa, 78, 444+. Retrieved March 6, 2006, from

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001516069

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional

effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive

theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and

educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bass, B. M. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of

Leadership Studies, 7(3), 18.

Bentz, V. M., & Shapiro, J. J. (1998). Mindful enquiry in social research. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Best national universities. U.S. News & World Report, 139(7), 80-84.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An

introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Boyatzis, R. E. (2002). Unleashing the power of self-directed learning. In R. Sims

(Ed.), Changing the way we manage change (pp.13-32). NY: Quorum Books.

Brookfield, S. D. (1990). The skillful teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

233

Brunner, D. (1994). Inquiry and reflection: Framing narrative practice in education.

New York: State University of New York Press.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Candy, P. C. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning: A comprehensive guide to

theory and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Candy, P. C. (1992). The inquiring mind: A study of the adult who continues to learn.

In G. J. Confessore & S. J. Confessore (Eds.), Guidepost to self-directed

learning: Expert commentary on essential concepts (pp. 23-35). King of

Prussia, PA: Organizational Design and Development.

Carr, P., & Confessore, G. (1998, February). Resourcefulness: One of the conative

factors associated with resourcefulness. Paper presented at the International

Symposium on Self-Directed Learning, Kississimmee, FL.

Carr, P. B. (1999). The measurement of resourcefulness intentions in the adult

autonomous learner. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60 (11), 3849A.

(UMI No. 9949341)

Confessore, G. J. (1992). An introduction to the study of self-directed learning. In G.

J. Confessore & S. J. Confessore (Eds.), Guidepost to self-directed learning:

Expert commentary on essential concepts (pp. 1-6). King of Prussia, PA:

Organizational Design and Development.

Corno, L. (1994). Student volition and education: Outcomes, influences, and

practices. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of

learning and performance (pp. 229-254). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

234

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among

five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Cronbach, L. J., & Associates. (1980). Toward reform of program evaluation. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Derrick, M. G. (2001). The measurement of an adult’s intention to exhibit

persistence in autonomous learning. Dissertation Abstracts International,

62(05), 2533B. (UMI No. 3006915)

Derrick, M. G., Carr, P. B., & Ponton, M. (2003). Facilitating and understanding

autonomy in adult learners. New Horizons in Adult Education, 17(2), 4-10.

Donaldson, J. F., & Edelson, P. J. (2000). From functionalism to postmodernism in

adult education leadership. In A. L. Wilson & E. R. Hayes (Eds.), Handbook

of adult and continuing education (pp. 191-207). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass and the American Association for Adult and Continuing Education.

Dukes, S. (1984). Phenomenological methodology in the human sciences. Journal of

Religion and Health, 23(3), 197-203.

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972 -

- 1977. New York: Pantheon.

Fullan, M. G. (1985). Change processes and strategies at the local level. The

Elementary School Journal, 85(3), 391-422.

Gardiner, L. F. (1998, Spring). Why we must change: The research evidence. Thought

and Action, 71-87.

Garrison, D. R. (1989). Facilitating self-directed learning: Not a contradiction in

terms. In H. B. Long Associates (Ed.), Self-directed learning: Emerging

235

theory & practice (pp. 143-160). Norman, OK: Oklahoma Research Center

for Continuing Professional and Higher Education.

Glasser, W. (1997). Choice theory and student success. Phi Delta Kappa, 78, 596-

602.

Glickman, C. (1993). Renewing America's schools: A guide for school-based action.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gray, A. (2002). Constructivist teaching and learning [Electronic version]. SSTA

Research Centre Report #97-07, 25. Retrieved September 14, 2005, from

http://www.ssta.sk.ca/research/instruction/97-07.htm

Groenewald, T. (2004). A phenomenological research design illustrated [Electronic

version]. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3. Retrieved February

12, 2006, from

http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/3_1/pdf/groenewald.pdf

Guglielmino, L. M. (1992). Understanding and facilitating adult learning. In G. J.

Confessore & S. J. Confessore (Eds.), Guidepost to self-directed learning:

Expert commentary on essential concepts (pp. 112-121). King of Prussia, PA:

Organization Design and Development.

Hansen, E. J., & Stephens, J. A. (2000). The ethics of learner-centered education.

Retrieved September 17, 2005, from

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1254/is_5_32/ai_66278485

Hiemstra, R. (1992). Self-Directed learning: From theory to practice. In G. J.

Confessore & S. J. Confessore (Eds.), Guideposts to Self-Directed learning

(pp. 99-111). King of Prussia, PA: Organization Design and Development.

236

Hiemstra, R., & Brockett, R. G. (1994). From behaviorism to humanism:

Incorporating self-directed learning. New ideas about self-directed learning.

Retrieved February 12, 2006, from

http://home.tweny.rr.com/hiemstra/sdlhuman.html

Holley, D., & Oliver, M. (2000). Pedagogy and new power relationships. The

International Journal of Management Education, 1(1), 11-21.

Houle, C. O. (1961). The inquiring mind: A study of the adult learner who continues

to participate to learn. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Husserl, E. (1931). Ideas: General introduction to pure phenomenology (D. Carr,

Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Kleinbaum, N. H. (1989). Dead poets society. New York: Bantam Books.

Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to

andragogy. New York: Cambridge Books.

Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lambert, L. (2002). Toward a deepened theory of constructivist leadership. In L.

Lambert, D. Walker, D. P. Zimmerman, J. E. Cooper, M. D. Lambert, M. E.

Gardner, & M. Szabo (Eds.), The Constructivist Leader (2nd ed., pp. 34-62).

New York and Oxford, OH: Teachers College Press and National Staff

Development Council.

237

Lambert, M. D., & Gardner, M. E. (2002). The school district as interdependent

learning community. In L. Lambert, D. Walker, D. P. Zimmerman, M. D.

Lambert, M. E. Gardner, & M. Szabo (Eds.), The constructivist leader (2nd

ed., pp. 164-203). New York and Oxford, OH: Teachers College Press,

Columbia University and National Staff Development Council.

Lester, N. B., & Onore, C. S. (1990). Learning change: One school district meets

language across the curriculum. Portsmith, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and

authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. In D. D. Williams (Ed.), New directions

for program evaluation (pp. 73-84). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Long, H. B. (1989). Self-directed learning: emerging theory and practice. Norman,

OK: Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing Professional and Higher

Education, University of Oklahoma.

Long, H. B. (1998). Theoretical and practical implications of selected paradigms of

self-directed learning. In H. B. L. Associates (Ed.), Developing paradigms for

self-directed learning (pp. 1-14). Norman, OK: Public Managers Center,

College of Education, University of Oklahoma.

Long, H. B. (2002). Teaching for learning. Marabar, FL: Krieger Publishing.

Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (2001). The new superleadership: Leading others to lead

themselves. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

238

Matthews, M. R. (2005). Old wine in new bottles: A problem with constructivist

epistemology. Retrieved October 19, 2005, from

http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PES-Yearbook/92_docs/Matthews.HTM

Merriam, S. B., & Cafferella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive

guide (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Meyer, D. A. (2001). The measurement of intentional behavior as a prerequisite to

autonomous learning. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(12), 4697A.

(UMI No. 9999882)

Mezeske, B. (2005). Shifting paradigms? Don't forget to tell your students. In I.

Shibley (Ed.), The best of the teaching professor (pp. 15-16). Madison, WI:

Magna Publications.

Mezirow, J. (1984). A critical theory of adult learning and education. In S. B.

Merriam (Ed.), Selected writings on philosophy and adult education (pp. 123-

139). Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company.

Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in

progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: HarperCollins.

Moerer-Urdahl, T., & Creswell, J. (2004). Using transcendental phenomenology to

explore the "ripple effect" in a leadership mentoring program. International

Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(2). Retrieved January 15, 2006, from

http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/3_2/pdf/moerercreswell.pdf

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

239

Park, E., & Confessore, G. (2000). A pilot study of learner autonomy in selected

populations of graduate students: A comparison of Asian and American

students Paper presented at The 1st Institute of Asian Pacific Education

Development International Conference on Education Research, Seoul, Korea.

Retrieved September 2, 2005, from

http://aped.snu.ac.kr/icer/data/fullpaper/Full%20Paper/1-6eunmip.htm

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Perry, R., & Penner, K. (1990). Enhancing academic achievement in college students

through attributional retraining and instruction. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 82(2), 262-271.

Polkinghorne, D. E. (1989). Phenomenological research methods. In R. S. Valle & S.

Halling (Eds.), Existential-phenomenological perspectives in psychology (pp.

41-60). New York: Plenum.

Ponton, M. K. (1999). The measurement of an adult's intention to exhibit personal

initiative in autonomous learning. Dissertation Abstracts International,

60(11), 3933A. (UMI No. 9949350)

Ponton, M. K., Carr, P. B., & Derrick, M. G. (2004, Spring). A path analysis of

conative factors associated with autonomous learning. International Journal

of Self-Directed Learning, 59-69.

240

Ponton, M. K., & Hall, J. M. (2003). The relationship between postsecondary

education and personal initiative for adult learners [Electronic version].

Current Issues in Education, 6. Retrieved September 1, 2005, from

http://cie.asu.edu/volume6/number17/

Pratt, D. D., & Nesbit, T. (2000). Discourses and cultures of teaching. In A. L.

Wilson & E. R. Hayes (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education

(pp. 117-131). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass and American Association for

Adult and Continuing Education.

Roblyer, M. D., & Edwards, J. (2000). Integrating educational technology into

teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Rogers, C. R., & Freiberg, H. J. (1994). Freedom to learn (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH:

Merrill/Macmillan.

Rosenbaum, M. (1989). Self control under stress: The role of learned resourcefulness.

Adverse Behavioral Therapy, 11, 109-121.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data

(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rubin, R. S., Munz, D. C., & Bommer, W. H. (2005). Leading from within: The

effects of emotion recognition and personality on transformational leadership

behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 845-858.

Sampson, D., Karagiannidis, C., Schenone, A., & Cardinali, F. (2002). Knowledge-

on-demand in e-learning and e-working settings. Educational Technology &

Society, 5(2), 107-112.

241

Senge, P. M. (1990). 5th discipline: Art and practice of the learning organization.

New York: Doubleday/Currency.

Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., & Smith, B. J. (1994). The fifth

discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization.

New York: Doubleday.

Senge, P. M., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A.

(2000). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents,

and everyone who cares about education. New York: Doubleday.

Thanasoulas, D. (2000). Autonomy and learning: An epistemological approach

[Electronic version]. Applied Semiotics, 10, 550. Retrieved September 9,

2005, from http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/french/as-sa/ASSA-No-A4.html

Thomas, S. (1997). Intrinsic motivations, literacy, and assessment practices: "That's

my grade. That's me." [Electronic version]. Educational Psychologist, 32,

107-123. Retrieved March 6, 2006, from

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77003571

Tough, A. (1979). The adult's learning project. San Diego, CA: University

Associates.

Vandenberg, D. (1997). Phenomenological research in the study of education. In D.

Vandenberg (Ed.), Phenomenology and education discourse (pp. 3-37).

Johannesburg, South Africa: Heinemann.

Wald, P. J., & Castleberry, M. S. (Eds.). (2000). Educators as learners: Creating a

professional learning community in your school. New York: Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development.

242

Walker, D. (2002). Constructivist leadership: Standards, equity, and learning --

weaving whole cloth from multiple strands. In L. Lambert (Ed.), The

constructivist leader (2nd ed., pp. 1-33). New York and Oxford, OH: Teachers

College Press.

Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. New

York: Jossey-Bass.

Wheatley, M. J. (1999). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a

chaotic world (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Zimmerman, D. P. (2002). The linguistics of leadership. In L. Lambert, D. Walker, D.

P. Zimmerman, J. E. Cooper, M. D. Lambert, M. E. Gardner, & M. Szabo

(Eds.), The constructivist leader (2nd ed., pp. 89-111). New York and Oxford,

OH: The Teachers College Press and National Staff Development Council.

243

Appendix A

Interview Questions for Undergraduate Professors

Interview research question: What hindrances do undergraduate teachers experience

when considering transference of control for learning to autonomous learners?

1. What does the term autonomous learning mean?

2. What is your teaching philosophy?

3. What does it mean to give control for learning to autonomous learners?

a. What are the structural meanings of teacher control?

b. What are the underlying themes and contexts that account for

hindrances in giving control for learning to autonomous learners?

c. What are the phenomena that precipitate feelings and thoughts about

“giving control for learning to autonomous learners”?

d. What are the invariant structural themes that facilitate a description of

hindrances to giving control for learning to autonomous learners?

4. What hindrances for giving control for learning to autonomous learners do

professors experience?

5. What hindrances and not experienced for giving control for learning to

autonomous learners?

6. Describe a professor who does not experience or demonstrate hindrances for

giving control of learning to autonomous learners?

7. What is difficult or easy about giving control of learning to autonomous

learners?

244

8. Would you consider yourself an autonomous learner?

9. Describe how you were taught.

245

Appendix B

Classroom Observation Elements

Physical Environment

1. Physical classroom structure/layout

2. Number and demographic of students

3. Classroom atmosphere – mood of students and professor

4. Learner-centered use of technology

Classroom leader and Students

5. Leader’s perceived level of control for learning

6. Leader provides resources for learning

7. Leader’s process of questioning and emphasis on self-directed learning

8. Leader’s style of responding to student questions and comments

9. Leader’s use of metaphors or story telling to give better understanding

10. Leader’s use of names when addressing students

11. Leader’s manner of talking informally with students

12. Leader’s use of nonverbal communication

13. Leader’s use of learning theory evidenced in class

14. Student discussion pattern: teacher-centered; student-centered

15. Student input on class learning

16. Student evidence concerning learning

17. Student engagement with learning process

18. Students prepared and looking forward to learning

19. Students motivated for autonomous learning