The Learning Contract Process: Scaffolds for Building Social, Self-Directed Learning

This article focuses on the online classroom space in which social, self-directed learning scaffolds were used to improve course outcomes, enhance student satisfaction, and extend course impact. Social learning theory emphasizes the import of the contextual social environment and the exchange that occurs between an individual, his or her surroundings, and other people (Berk & Winsler, 1995). Learning is not only tied to the context in which it is embedded, but also to relationships with others. The act of knowing in social learning theory becomes mediated by the competences that are displayed in social communities (Wenger, 2000). Communities have also been found to be contextual in nature, varying from setting to setting involving attitude, thought, and interest.

While many have noted the benefits of interaction and social exchange in online courses, the integration of tools associated with self-directed, adult learning philosophies have been relatively ignored. Therefore, the defining question for research is as follows: What content framework is conducive for developing social, self-directed learning processes in an online course? An action plan was established and continually revised during three consecutive semesters in a master’s level course, “EME 6425: Microcomputer for School Managers,” offered by the University of South Florida, Lakeland, to investigate the facilitation of social, cooperative development; online engagement; and self-directed learning philosophies. Within course iterations, new tools were added to better scaffold the experience, raise expectation, and allow for personal exploration.

Virtual learning has been built on the foundation of “anytime/anyplace” and, while some learning experiences can be developed along these lines, most courses require timelines and assignments. Realistically, students can work from anywhere in the world in an online class at any time during the day that they choose (unless there is a pre-determined synchronous “real-time” portion of the course). However, in some circles “anytime/anyplace” has been interpreted as an independent learning experience; one in which students only have to follow a scripted experience and complete all assignments by the end of a specified time frame. Timelines, interaction, and goal orientation are often an integral part of a learning experience and therefore virtual structures cannot be non-existent and limitless. When interaction and group involvement are integrated into an online course, students become responsible for both their own learning and assisting in the learning of others (Harasim, Hiltz, Teles, & Turoff, 1995).

The infusion of a collective focus into the instructional design and learning experience can reinforce the walls of the virtual classroom. The development of collaborative learning, “an interactive group knowledge-building process” (Harasim, et al., 1995, p. 4) that assists learners in actively constructing knowledge in conjunction with the views and perspectives shared by others is being instituted in many online environments. Learning in this manner is often quite discombobulating and requires strong safety measures to secure all members of the experience. The use of community can also negate the isolation that often accompanies many independent, correspondence courses (Brown, 2001).

The safety paraphernalia required within a virtual construction learning zone are usually established by the instructor or facilitator of the course. Role designation, interaction guidelines, respect, and trust all act as safety and security elements, reinforcing the fundaments necessary for higher levels of learning. Role designations or role discussions are often advisable for online classes to limit logistical difficulties in certain non-visual, asynchronous environments that tend to be characteristic of the virtual classroom (Harasim, et al., 1995). Guidelines for interaction can provide a listing of expectations while expressing the import of interchange within the isolation of virtual learning activities. As stated by Harasim, et al. (1995), “Group learning and the obligations it entails may not be familiar or comfortable at first . . . A positive attitude and considerate behavior will generally help all students become productive group members in the online environment” (p. 207). Learning communities thrive in settings where there are feelings of belongingness and a sense of trust (Rovai, 2002).

Interaction has also been found to be critical to community building online. Being engaged has been conceptualized as a mode of belonging and interaction as a medium for active involvement (Brown, 2001; Wenger, 2000). Curtis (2001) has conceptualized successful collaboration in face-to-face settings as possible in an online learning environment. Interaction in an online course is developed by instructor-created pedagogical structures that guide student learning. Therefore, interaction becomes hinged on course design and intended outcomes rather than the virtual medium by which the curriculum is shared (Rovai, 2002). Interaction online becomes the means of vital perspective sharing, product development, and connectedness to the greater learning objective.

Group learning, learning communities, and collaborative environments have become a necessary fundament of increased productivity in the business sector, education and other fields. The age of knowledge has mandated the need for greater intellectual problem-solving capacity than exists within the individual. The power of many can accomplish more than the power of one, with diverse perspective and unprecedented ingenuity. To this end, community and community learning have become the focus of much attention. Community has been hypothesized to be context specific, adapting, and mutating based upon the setting and purpose (Hill, 1996; White & Weight, 2000). Therefore, the assumption that online communities are distinct from in-person communities can also be made.

What are classroom/learning communities? According to Rovai (2002), classroom communities can be defined as having spirit, displaying trust, engaging in interaction, and sharing learning experiences. These components can be replicated, given the appropriate course/learning structure, in virtual settings as well as in the physical environment. “Experienced online instructors can also build and sustain levels of community that are at least equal to those experienced in traditional classrooms” (Rovai, 2002, pg. 52). Of course, factors such as student personalities and individual input agents mediate overall learning outcomes, but providing guiding structure for community development forces a collective element into the learning process.

Positive virtual classroom communities have the following components according to Collison, Elbaum, Haavind, and Tinker (2000): participants post regularly, members’ needs are accommodated and honest opinions are expressed, teaching occurs, participant-to-participant collaboration with spontaneous moderation emerges from a variety of roles, reasonable venting is acceptable, and participants show concern and support for the community. Instructors and course designers need to provide the structures for these elements to develop (Brown, 2001; Ko & Rossen, 2001; Palloff & Pratt, 2001). Expecting these characteristics to emerge naturally is unrealistic and akin to starting a construction project without a basic set of blueprints to guide the process. “Constructing a course that allows these naturally occurring processes to unfold greatly enhances the learning outcome and the process of community building” (Palloff & Pratt, 2001, p. 33). One way to encourage the creation of online communities is to provide collaboration-type learning goals for groups to explore together as well as require joint learning outcomes rather than independent assignments.

Communities of practice have been described by Wenger (2000) as the building blocks of a social learning system. Within communities of practice, competence is linked to a shared sense of completion and accountability, establish mutually accepted relationships that are transmitted through interaction, and share a culture of resources, language, routines, etc. (Wenger, 2000). To prepare a structure open enough for individual exploration yet closed enough for the establishment of communities of practice, a scaffold must be applied to the overall learning experience that allows for the development of adult competencies through a means that enhances cooperative thought and action. This scaffold must also be flexible and adaptive enough to allow for student socio-cultural/socio-cognitive development.

Within the designed framework, the support structure for individual and collective growth potential must also accommodate assessment procedures that measure collective learning objectives. As stated by Derry and DuRussel (2000), “much of the work within learning communities is project-oriented and inquiry based rather than curriculum driven, the goals of instruction are variable across individuals and groups and are largely determined by learners themselves” (p. 2). Sharing information and resources created by group endeavor increases the capacity for self-assessment (White & Weight, 2000). The conceived framework not only supports the building of social learning, but also specifies the measurement of outcomes for competence, usability, and overall completion of the intended objectives.

Knowles (1975) defined self-directed learning as “. . . a process in which individuals take the initiative, with or without the help of others, in diagnosing their learning needs, formulating learning goals, identifying human and material resources for learning, choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies, and evaluating learning outcomes” (p. 18). Key components of Knowles’ (1986) adult learning concept of andragogy are interaction, task centeredness, individualization, and self-directedness (Lane, 1997), and are applicable regardless of the learning setting.

Self-direction has been considered to be a function of the “socially-independent or isolated learner, to distance education methods, and to the techniques employed as well as the psychological process” (Long, 2000, p. 22). Blending andragogy and self-direction with a group focus is an interesting concept given the specific focus on individualization and self-directedness. White and Weight (2000) note, “Working adults may be self-directed, but they also value the exchange of ideas and meaningful relations” (p. 43).

Knowles (1986) has suggested that adults have a deep psychological need to be self-directing and designing educational programs toward this end increases the ownership of the learning experience. Evidence indicates that when “adults learn on their own initiative they learn more deeply and permanently than what they learn by being taught” (Knowles, 1986). Experienced educators have noted in a study by Schrum (2002) that providing flexibility within online courses can help students be responsible for their own learning. Students who become empowered to control their own learning experience become transformed as individuals and therefore more engaged in their own learning process (Moore & Kearsley, 1996; Lane, 1997; Palloff & Pratt, 1999).

The architecture of the virtual classroom appears to be more aesthetically pleasing and more structurally satisfying to learners who are more mature and self-directed (Moore & Kearsley, 1996; Palloff & Pratt, 2001). However, along with the non-traditional nature of the learner who is successful and satisfied with the online setting comes the need for an upheaval of traditional classroom hierarchies. Encouraging adults to plan and complete educational experiences modifies traditional role schematics (Harasim, et al., 1995; Palloff & Pratt, 1999, Schrum, 2002). The role transition of instructor position provides the opportunity to incorporate adult learning frameworks within the online experience.

As a group of learners construct a learning experience, it must be remembered that each of the individuals is in control of his or her own engagement, and yet the overarching project must be formed from the juncture of commonality. To frame the social experience, a loosefitting structure must be applied that illuminates the style of each learner, sets a course of action, and specifies what successful completion entails. The term “scaffolding” has been used by scholars (Berk & Winsler, 1995) to describe teaching pedagogies that focus on the zone of proximal development (ZPD), as introduced by Vygotsky (1978). The ZPD can be defined as the discrepancy between current level of psychological and cognitive functioning and the potential level that can develop with expert guidance (Hung, 2002). This concept was originally developed in regard to children; however, it has bridged age delimitations into adult learning schematics (Alfred, 2002). The establishment of scaffolds to support novice learners coupled with a steady progression to remove structure as students gain knowledge, confidence, and skills can increase independence and encourage self-regulated patterns (Dabbagh, 2003). Scaffolding can be established as a support system within the virtual classroom, to assist learners in moving from one level to the other.

The learning contract process suggested by Knowles (1986) provides the basic platforms for structuring individual learning. There are eight steps to the learning contract process: diagnose learning needs, specify learning objectives, specify learning objectives and resources, specify evidence of accomplishment, specify how the evidence will be validated, review of the contract, carry out the contract, and evaluation of overall learning. Each of these levels of planning, action, and review, coupled with an instructor-provided supply of general content objectives, tools, guidance when needed, and materials or resources can be established as a framework for learning in online environments. The use of learning contracts can reduce some of the difficulty faced by instructors that attempt to design online programs that are more self-directed rather than control oriented (Moore & Kearsley, 1996).

While traditionally this learning design has been formulated as part of individual experience, it is equally valuable to a joint learning encounter. Learning contracts have been used in a conventional manner in a variety of disciplines including but not exclusive to: nursing programs, adult education programs, independent studies, social work, staff development programs, clinical learning, organizational learning, and management development. The use of learning contracts has been found to be highly effective in face-to-face settings that promote an individualistic approach to the learning experience (Knowles, 1986; Huff, 1998; Beitler, 2000; Waddell, 2000).

Learners may need to diagnose their own learning interests, but the juncture where a group’s needs meet is the foundation for the community project. The struggle through course material and medium can actually enhance the group buy-in and connectedness (Palloff & Pratt, 1999). The initial process of the learning contract construction, particularly the diagnosing of needs, objective selection, strategy identification, and product designation are critical to the process, and it is suggested here that these steps be completed during a face-to-face orientation session rather than in the virtual classroom space.

The platforms provided by the learning contract process must be connected together, in order to provide a stable footing and general understanding for the self-directed learner. Understanding of self and others can provide a conduit to higher levels of interaction and group learning. Schrum (2002) noted that “Individuals must be able to recognize their own abilities and styles, in order to ask or modify the learning necessary for online environments” (p. 61). Developing a basic reference of how the individual members of a learning community conceptualize information and are motivated to make decisions (this includes values and emotional preferences), makes it possible for the collective to accommodate the individual (Palloff & Pratt, 2001). Utilizing an ongoing meta-cognitive awareness process for continually adjusting personal learning styles to group dynamic can be valuable for online learning.

Knowledge of learning style issues also allows instructors to prepare materials and resources that provide a means for all learning preferences to thrive. For example, those learners who love the structure and step-by-step guidance of clear directions and expectations can have a choice of prescriptive activities from which to select. Others may prefer to learn through trial and error and exploration or to receive excessive information for internalization. According to Palloff and Pratt (2001), “Because it is difficult for an instructor to know the learning styles of his or her students in advance, creating a course that is varied in its approaches can help to motivate all students and keep them involved” (p. 112). When groups establish their own objectives and plan products through the learning contract process, the use of learning style information can then connect the course content to a group’s overall creation of learning, support without controlled prescription.

Investigating the success of the scaffold suggested above as a means of providing a global overall structure to a social, online learning experience requires the use of research techniques that can be integrated into the learning process. “Action research aims at solving specific problems within a program, organization, or community” (Patton, 2002, p. 221). The problem presented as part of this research project was reconciling the concept of self-directed philosophies with collaborative groups in an online environment. Therefore, active investigation of created content, learning structures, context, learning outcomes, community dynamic, successes, and challenges are necessary. The online environment is appropriate for the ongoing nature of action research, where iterative design decisions can be used to enhance online learning community environments (Lock, 2003).

Data collection, data analysis, evaluation of results, and further planning is ongoing throughout an action research project (Razik & Swanson, 1995). The researcher during the action research process is a practitioner and member of the activity being researched (Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, 1995). A collaborative classroom environment with clear focus of problem, continuous data collection, and reflective evaluation could be considered appropriate for action research opportunities. The virtual classroom then becomes a logical application of action research possibilities.

As previously mentioned, action research provides an ongoing emergent view of the constructed learning process that is as critical as the individual data analyses. The general focus of this study was to address the lack of available research on the integration of self-directed learning tools in online settings that encourage socio-cultural learning opportunities. The defining question for research follows: What content framework is conducive for developing social, self-directed learning processes in an online course? The research, which included three phases, began in January, 2002 and ended in December, 2002. The participants in this research selected the course “EME 6425: Microcomputers for School Managers” as part of their master’s program in Education Leadership. A few selected the course for credentialing or continuing education purposes. The student group was primarily made up of teachers, school district administrators and school specialists. Students were asked to sign consent forms acknowledging participation in the research, and video consents were also obtained. Any student who chose not to participate was removed from the data set and was not penalized in any way.

Each of the three phases (phase duration was equivalent to semester time blocks) included a face-to-face full-day orientation meeting (9:00-4:00), closing half day meeting (9:00-12:00), and Web-based instruction. Orientation provided an overview of the courseware package, learning styles instrument and information, self-selected group formation, and group exchange to determine objectives and build cohesiveness. The final face-to-face meeting included time for product sharing, group reflection, and course closure (completion of paperwork).

A learning style instrument, the Learning Combination Inventory (LCI) was given to students during different points in the semester and evaluated as to information effectiveness. The LCI assists participants in identifying natural talents and provides information that can enhance cooperative learning relationships. The data from the LCI was collected and students were given a brief presentation on how to conceptually consider the learning style categories and how each of the categories related to one another.

The face-to-face classes were videotaped during phase 2 and phase 3 to provide record of the group dynamic, cues to individual satisfaction, and overall success of the scaffolding structure. Discussion transcripts and e-mail records were downloaded each semester and reviewed to determine level of interaction, student engagement, and knowledge outcomes. Students also submitted personal reflections, either during or at the end of the semester, on course effectiveness, group work process, and overall learning accomplishment. End-ofthe-semester course evaluations prepared by the professor provided information about course structures and the impact on student learning and satisfaction.

The tools and scaffolding also furnished evidence of individual and joint learning outcomes and learning process. Learning contact documents were required for phases 2 and 3. Along with these learning contracts, a diagnostic instrument, grading contract, and online participation rating form were also used to scaffold the student experience. Students completed a self-rated diagnostic instrument assessing current topic knowledge and professional competency needed on all course objectives, integrating the learning contract process into the course. This method was also used by Knowles (1986) in his work with adult education students. Areas that were selected as important by students, both on an individual and learning community basis, were then transferred to the learning contract. These objectives identified the major areas of content that must be covered per University standards; however, unique objective requests that were appropriate to the course were explored with the learner.

Within the learning contract, students listed the objectives that were identified on the diagnostic instrument described above. They then specified strategies and resources that would be used to achieve knowledge about the self-specified (individual and learning community) objectives. Online course materials provided support activities resources and skill checklists that could be used as self-determined by the students, but students could also self-create learning experiences. Creative ways of learning were encouraged to be explored. The students also set dates for themselves to have specific objectives completed. Students specified evidential products that would show gained knowledge and demonstrate outcomes. Finally, students were asked to specify authentication activities on the learning contract, listing who would be providing feedback on the quality and content of their work, and how this person or persons would be communicating their feedback to the group or individual. The person(s) authenticating the project must have knowledge and competence in the particular subject area, integrating work product into the real context and thereby extending learning impact. For instance, if a learning community project was to create an “ideal” technology plan, then the group may have their respective four administrators evaluate the project and rate the project on a group-supplied evaluation form. The professor in this scenario would also receive a copy of the completed project and authenticating documents for accountability, record-keeping purposes, and verification of basic skills.

The grading contracts and online participation rating form, completed at the end of the semester, provided information on students’ self-reflection, personal feedback on objective completion, course engagement and interaction, and personal impacts of the course and course tools. These additional forms also provided accountability measures for students to conscientiously recognize personal contribution and commitment to self-prescribed learning activities and outcomes.

During this initial pilot phase, none of the self-directed tools (learning contracts, diagnostic instruments, or reflective components) were utilized to guide groups. This phase included 28 student participants and was designed primarily as a conventional online course that also utilized learning communities. There was no student attrition during this semester. Included in the original course structure were ten content modules to be completed by students during the 15-week semester. Early in the semester, students communicated that the workload was too extensive and a content adjustment was made; learning communities were advised to select 5 of the 10 overall content modules. Although this self-selection allowed for choice of modules, each individual module remained highly structured, prescribing specific learning activities to be completed for credit. While the reduction in workload was appreciated, when asked in the final evaluation whether increased face-to-face contact would be helpful, 11 students responded “yes,” indicating that directions often remained unclear. Following are examples of their comments:

Although increasing face-to-face opportunities might prove helpful, these statements seemed more indicative of issues with self-direction and personal comfort that would require further enhancements in future semesters. The online nature of the course is an integral aspect of the course content designed to intentionally foster the use of hardware, software, and other computer media and materials. Therefore, adapting the course structure made more sense than altering the overall course delivery.

During this phase, the LCI was administered at the conclusion of the semester in order to better understand the learning preferences of the students. As is common with action research, the decision to administer this instrument was determined at the mid-semester point and, therefore, was not given at the beginning of the semester. The majority of students in this group (21) had a high degree of sequence guiding their learning profile, suggesting that they enjoyed planning, working neatly, and requiring a clear sense of direction (see Table 1). Ironically, although the content modules were highly structured and prescribed, those with high sequence desired more clearly defined directions, requesting that future semesters involve additional face-to-face contacts.

Approximately half of the students (16) were also driven by a precise style, meaning that they sought extensive information, enjoyed writing, sharing details, and questioning others. The other two learning style domains were represented less significantly by the students, with 10 scoring high in technical qualities (therefore they enjoy relevant meaningful tasks, hands-on activities, and privacy and independence in thought), and 6 individuals who presented as highly confluent (creative, intuitive thinkers, risk-takers, and tending to make unique connections). While this diagnostic process recognizes that all individuals possess combinations of each of the four learning patterns, the driving force among this group was sequential processing. The information in Table 1 represents the class averages of LCI scores in each phase.

As a summer course, this phase was only ten weeks in duration. There was no student attrition during this phase of the course. Based on an analysis of the overall experience in Phase 1, several actions were taken to enhance student learning, integrate the curriculum within the online course delivery model, and increase aspects of social, self-direction. First, the learning styles analysis was completed at the onset of the semester in order to enhance understanding of both individual and group learning patterns (see Table 1 for results). Second, although the content remained unchanged, ten-module format, frameworks supporting social, self-direction were provided for the first time. These frameworks for scaffolding learning included the self-rated diagnostic instrument, learning contracts, grading contracts and an online discussion rating form. Learning contracts were submitted initially in draft format and were altered based upon instructor feedback. The learning contract process operated much like a negotiation between the instructor and the group or individual. Instructor approval (usually the second week of class) meant that the learning contract represented an acceptable level of work and learning “if” contracts were completed to specification. The students were free to adapt the contract as necessary in collaboration with the professor. These documents were considered a living and breathing representation of the learning process.

Students were asked to self-organize into learning communities and complete a diagnostic instrument designed to evaluate personal knowledge of course objectives. The results then became the basis for planning a learning contract, requiring a minimum of five goals (to coincide with choosing at least five modules). In order to encourage social learning, at least three of the five goals were to be learning community goals. However, all groups did have the option of completing all five goals jointly. Extra credit was offered for completion of additional goals. Final approval of all learning contracts was negotiated with the instructor for both group and individual goals.

A final addition to the course delivery involved the use of self-evaluation. At the end of the semester, students were asked to complete a grading contract, designed to provide the opportunity to self-evaluate their own attainment of goals. Additionally, each student was asked to submit a self-evaluation of their online participation throughout the semester.

Although the learning styles instrument was administered at the start of the course, due to time constraints during the initial face-to-face meeting, only individual interpretation was completed. Very little attention was devoted to the utilization of results for the enhancement of group effectiveness. In the final evaluation, some students expressed a need for further integration of learning styles into course design and group coordination.

Students directly addressed the issue of learning contracts and other tools in the end of the course evaluations. Of the 21 students enrolled in the course during the second phase, 20 submitted these instructor-designed evaluations. On questions about the level of relevancy of the course and the positive aspects of the course, students responded as follows:

Other students also indicated that the learning contract and resulting strategies and project work were helpful tools in the learning process. Every student completed their agreed upon contracts. Final course products included presentations on a variety of technology topics utilizing appropriate software applications, design of Web pages and Web animations, database creation and manipulation, virtual research, Internet usage and research evaluations, brochures on topics such as networks and technology usage with visually impaired populations, and extensive technology curriculum integration projects. All of these products were planned and completed by the individual groups using the provided content and the course objectives.

However, despite the general interest in use of the scaffolding format, some students expressed concerns about the flow of the material and discomfort with this “non-traditional” format. Comments on the course evaluation which indicated these issues are as follows:

While it appeared that some students were uncomfortable with the course structure that required student-driven objectives and products, the value of such tools appeared greater than returning to a traditional course format. The modules appeared confusing to the contract development since the resources did not effectively align to the diagnostic instrument that was completed at the beginning of the semester. This premise is based on the course evaluation data (5 of the 20 responses), discussion/e-mail transcript information, personal conversation, and feedback from students to the instructor. Therefore, the research team decided to continue with the use of the self-direction frameworks, but instead modify the content, provide a more specific face-to-face training experience and re-state in a variety of ways the course expectations to clearly identify student and instructor roles.

In this second iteration of the course, only four students suggested that the course should require additional face-to-face work. This number is significantly decreased from the previous phase when 11 responded that they felt more face-to-face work would be beneficial. Those who indicated that they would prefer more face-to-face linked their responses to their individual learning style and personal readiness for self-directed experiences. For instance, one student wrote, “The best way to learn technology is to have an expert standing by you to help when things go wrong….” Clarity was not an issue that was linked to the need for further face-to-face teaching experiences during this semester. There were also only a few students who were still unclear as to the overall expectation and expressed a lack of understanding of the “self-directed” model that they were asked to use.

Phase 3 ran for the duration of 15 weeks and included 27 student participants, all of whom successfully completed the course. Expectations of student work remained consistent with the previously stated requirement of three learning community objectives and two individual objectives for course completion.

Based on the feedback from Phase 2, course content and curriculum resources were aligned and redesigned to reflect the objectives listed as part of the diagnostic instrument. Each of the modules became a part of a “resource pack” that students could, but did not have to, utilize in the design of their learning contracts. The resource packs included four major sections, directions, guidelines (activities), skills, and materials, which were available to students online in Web-based format. These resource packs were introduced as materials that provided information about each of the objectives in the initial diagnostic instrument, but use of these materials were not required.

Students indicated on the final evaluation that the detailed syllabus, resource packs, and associated matrices were helpful in their work. When responding to the question about the helpful aspects/activities of the course, one student responded, “The best is the materials online associated with each learning objective. The resources, articles, references, websites, etc. [are] awesome and I have referred to that material many times even for personal/professional use outside of this class.” Others concurred on the course evaluation and through personal discussion with the instructor. Those students who did not take advantage of these resources reported a lack of clarity and/or discomfort with the format of the course. Grades in the course were dependent upon online participation, the completion of learning contract objectives, the submission of the forms (learning contract, grading contracts, online discussion rating forms), completion of a student homepage, and participation in the last class face-to-face session. Therefore, students were never penalized if they made the choice not to actively engage with the available materials.

To attend with the issue of unclear expectation that was expressed during Phase 2, students were given a detailed brochure titled, “Tips to Online Success and Satisfaction,” which listed the following four tips with detailed explanation of the item of importance: stay engaged, use the tools available to plan for you, ask for what you need, and structure comes in many shapes and sizes. This brochure was reviewed during the face-to-face orientation class to eliminate any confusion over individual student expectation. In fact, this brochure accompanied a detailed syllabus clearly outlining course tools, grading procedures, and instructor/student roles. Despite the distribution of this brochure, there were still two students who did not actively engage throughout the entire 15-week semester.

Once again, all students completed their self-designed learning contracts. Products during this semester included: presentations utilizing the appropriate software, covering a variety of technology topics, active research in schools assessing student technology preferences and usage, technology plan development, video presentations/lesson plans for hardware usage, Website development, spreadsheet and database projects, research evaluations and video-conferencing/communication tool demonstrations. The authentication sequence of the learning contract extended learning outcomes into the natural work environments, increasing the level of impact of learning experiences. Students reported sharing learning products and new knowledge with administrators, district supervisors, colleagues, and other experts in the field, infusing product development into authentic work settings.

Unfortunately, during the face-to-face orientation meeting of this phase, facility issues disrupted the flow of the experience, minimizing the amount of time that was spent integrating the online course content with the joint learning contracts the self-selected groups attempted to create. This led to a continued sense of initial disequilibrium at the onset of the course. As students delved into the course materials, discussions reflected the need for further structured review. Students also wanted some indication of the priority of the objectives and importance to the roles they were to assume as future administrators. It was planned that further review of these materials would be done during the initial orientation for future phases.

As previously mentioned, each phase included a final, face-to-face meeting at which students shared their assignments and learning throughout the semester. During the second phase, this was hampered by the facility accommodations due to the need for multiple computers. While the technology was readily available, as is standard in most computer labs, computers were placed in rows minimizing the amount of flow and movement in the room. The final day of sharing was student-designed to be in a conference style, different stations arranged around the room displaying student products. While the physical environment of the final meeting did not interfere with the learning during the semester, it did seem to reduce the effectiveness of this last class experience.

In preparation for the next semester, this issue was addressed through the purchase and implementation of a wireless laptop cart that could be brought to any traditional classroom. In phase 3, a large meeting room where tables were rearranged and multiple wireless laptops and projectors were stationed around the room was used. In addition, Internet connections (wireless) were established that allowed students to display their work products and encourage other groups to interact with and explore the final projects, many of which were in the form of Websites. These alterations to the physical space and enhancement of technologies proved to be highly beneficial to the intent of the last face-to-face experience.

Based upon comments listed in the course evaluations, fewer students recommended changes to the course to improve the learning of material. Although enrollment increased this semester, the number of students requiring additional face-to-face work decreased even more. Only two students indicated that they would prefer to meet more often, and these responses were expressed as being tied to interpersonal reasons, rather than issues of clarity.

At the onset of the course, the students were presented with a more extensive overview of the learning style process, emphasizing the meta-cognitive analysis aspect and the application for enhancement of group dynamics. Immediately following the first meeting, they were asked to write a brief reflective response to the process, focusing on how the knowledge affected them personally and how it might be used during their coursework. Early in the semester, the research team provided LCI data back to the students in the form of class averages and group profiles. In addition, as the semester progressed, groups were asked to utilize their knowledge of learning patterns to reflect on their group process.

From their responses to the reflection questions, the highly sequential nature of many of the students was evident. Most comments were favorable toward the self-directed nature of the course, learning contracts, the diagnostic guide, and the structured modules. Individuals whose lead pattern was sequence described how they were able to use their skills to help their group develop a plan quickly and efficiently. Several whose lead pattern was technical reasoning appreciated the opportunity to link coursework to relevant problems within their schools. In their reflections about group process, several individuals discussed how knowledge and understanding of learning patterns helped enhance group function by encouraging patience and sensitivity to different needs and styles. Following are some of their comments:

The enhanced meta-cognition described in the statements above provided two benefits. First, students were able to reflect on their own work process and group dynamic to alter role adoption and individual behaviors. Secondly, these meta-cognitive reflections provided valuable information to the researchers on what was working for students and what needed adaptation in the course design in future semesters.

While self-directed learning allows for the development of individual interests in a manner that is aligned to the learning patterns of the student, this does not necessarily mean a lack of overall structure. Students in virtual groups appear to thrive on a clear expression of guiding concepts and the provision of helpful resources along with frameworks and scaffolding for obtaining knowledge. Lock (2003) described the following metaphor that directly supports the scaffolds that were used in this research:

The self-directed learning framework provided by Malcolm Knowles (1975) can be used with groups to provide a structure that facilitates the acquisition of knowledge without collapsing the adult quest for meaningful experience and relevance. Rather than controlling the mechanisms of learning and disseminating knowledge, the online professor then begins to construct scaffolds through the facilitation of process, provision of opportunity, attention to both group and individual requests, and learning styles.

Introducing the self-directed tools to mature students proved to be initially intimidating and overwhelming. Due to the online nature of the class, maximizing face-to-face time and hands-on experience around learning contract activities was imperative to the productive nature of group and individual planning. The “newness” of the self-directed tools had students stretched beyond their comfort zones and therefore expressing a bit of disequilibrium at the outset. Most students expressed increased comfort and understanding as learning contracts were submitted for instructor approval and as time elapsed during the semester. Instructor feedback and responsiveness and clearly defined expectation were critical to developing the learning contract process. This process built an atmosphere of instructor/student trust within the learning environment.

The high expectation, high quality, and diverse product that were a result of the learning contract process were amazing. The final results far exceeded professor expectations in both overall knowledge acquisition and outcomes-based evidence. The few groups that had difficulty aligning the independent nature of online work with the group “social” design of the course were guided by the professor through feedback and reiteration of the self-specified learning contract objectives and tasks.

Despite positive student feedback and general understanding of the learning contracts, phase 2 and phase 3 had about two students each semester who expressed extensive dislike and discomfort with the course structure and use of the learning contracts. While suggestions were taken from these students, it is essential to consider certain facets about student satisfaction in relation to course design. Some of these students were not prepared or “ready” for self-directed frameworks and others preferred to expend less effort designing their own learning. Another influencing factor could be tied to the expectations and roles that these individuals assume. Years of experience within traditional educational systems has prepared most adults for a format of instructor-control and dissemination of knowledge. Therefore, a small percentage of students will need additional time, investment, and learning maturation to move toward deliveries that reflect self-directed philosophies. In fact, there will be some students who will not be pleased regardless of the instructional method or delivery system.

At the end of each semester, there were a number of students who felt that they were now better prepared to explore further learning in this format. This course, however, was offered in isolation and therefore was not part of a larger program. Program development, using the suggested framework, which would incorporate both individual and group intellectual development, could be easily adapted from this material to provide a comprehensive approach to the learning process.

The action research methods that were employed as an initial frame to the study will be adapted to accommodate a more rigorous, comprehensive approach. Design-based research will be utilized to further involve theory development, model replication, and empirical emphasis in the investigation of the innovated scaffolds for facilitating the social, self-directed phenomena. The design-based research format incorporates collaboration, model verification, complex system investigation, diverse data collection techniques, and reform (Cobb, Confrey, diSessa, Lehrer, & Schauble, 2003; Shavelson, Phillips, Towne, & Feuer, 2003, Sloane & Gorard, 2003). Therefore, the global emphasis of this research will shift to encompass this educational inquiry paradigm.

Future semesters of this course will be taught with further modifications based upon the findings listed above. The next term will include a content activity allowing groups to explore the materials more fully before writing the initial draft of the group learning contract. Use of the LCI as a meta-cognitive analysis tool will continue to be part of the initial face-to-face session, with encouragement for students to use the knowledge in their learning communities while developing goals, identifying strategies, and assigning responsibilities. At several points during the next semester they will be asked to respond to reflective questions about their use of the meta-cognitive aspects.