Much confusion surrounds the term 'self-directed learning', which presently describes a process, a goal, a teaching technique, and an outcome of that teaching. As a process, the literature concentrates mainly on how individuals learn, with little reference to groups that can be as selfdirected as individuals. The purposes of this study were: (a) to reduce conceptual confusion by creating a typology distinguishing different processes of self-directed learning; (b) to explore the phenomenon of group self-directed learning; and (c) to illustrate the effect of environment on learning, and the complex learning dynamics in group settings. This project arose somewhat differently from typical doctoral research. Data from two unrelated field studies conducted for other purposes, completed before this thesis work began, each illustrated self-directed groups learning informally in the contexts of community action and innovative small workplaces. A subsequent review of the literature indicated a lack of attention to this form of group learning, and the field studies were then re-analyzed from this perspective. As a result of the literature review and data re-analysis (1) a typology emerged from the literature review that divides the process of self-directed learning into three forms, each of which is context sensitive but between which learners can continually move back and forth; (2) it appears that the term 'autodidactic' can apply to specific groups which are both self-organized and self-directed in their learning efforts; and (3) that the term 'autodidaxy' as presently defined is as conceptually confusing as the term 'self-directed learning'. This confusion is reduced by the typology proposed by this thesis. Minor findings indicate two continuing problems. The first is reluctance by some to accord non-credentialed learning the value it deserves, and the second is the difficulty often encountered in transferring knowledge from the site of learning to the site of application. This study concludes that 'informalizing' some formal curricula, and encouraging self-directed learning at all levels and in all contexts, may provide some of the tools necessary for living and learning in the twenty-first century. / Education, Faculty of / Educational Studies (EDST), Department of / Graduate

M.Ed.

No description available.

Visual aesthetics -- Whole-brain thinking -- Pictorial imaging -- Art and science, mathematics, social studies, and language arts.

This project promotes the use of literature groups based around a theme. In trying to meet the requirements of the California state framework, to integrate the subjects, this project contains two thematic units. Although the themes were designed for second and third grade, the two thematic units may be used as a guide to help teachers implement the thematics teaching approach into their classrooms.

This study explores and exposes the dichotomy that currently exists between educational policy and research in learning theory.

Organizations need to develop innovations to meet emerging problems and challenges due to increasing global competition, customer expectations, or market changes. Responding to these challenges requires employees to create solutions within their organizations, such as new products or processes. While some research has found crucial roles of individual faculty in the innovation process, less is known about how individual educators (i.e., university faculty and clinical practitioners) work across knowledge and organizational boundaries.The purpose of this case study on team innovative work behavior (TIWB) in higher education was to learn more about which team learning behaviors (TLBs) and team innovative work behaviors (TIWBs) were exhibited by a university-based cross-boundary work team to understand how these complex organizations can leverage learning toward practice improvement. The purposefully selected sample was composed of an 11 member California-based work team consisting of 5 faculty members from a redesigning public university, 4 senior administrators from partnering public school districts, and 2 faculty members from a partnering mentor program. The primary data collection method was in depth critical incident (CI) interviews. Supportive methods included a pre-interview questionnaire, field observations, document and artifact review, and a group interview. The data were coded and analyzed first by research question, and then findings were organized thematically in alignment with three analytic categories based on the study’s conceptual framework. The research revealed that the team exhibited several TLBs and one TIWB throughout the redesign process. The team’s capacity for learning and innovating was strongly influenced by the organizational conditions that brought the team together as well as the team’s leadership and facilitation. While few of the team members were able to articulate their own learning and practice changes explicitly, they did reflect on their learning in the context of task completion and goal achievement. Recommendations are offered for university and district practitioners, and for further research, including: (1) identifying a team leader with both positional and reputational authority, (2) selecting a team based on existing relationships and shared commitment to change, (3) using evidence to challenge existing assumptions, and (4) aligning activities to organizational and environmental forces.

This study highlighted factors informing instructors’ instructional beliefs and practices and the activities that help students engage in and develop a deep understanding of mathematics. The study also described instructors’ instructional activities and curricular practices when teaching mathematics and an interdisciplinary curriculum that integrates mathematics with other subjects. Through a qualitative phenomenological approach, surveys, semi-structured interviews, and analyses of instructional activities using an adapted version of the Teaching for Robust Understanding in Mathematics (or TRU Math©) framework characterized the experiences of 13 instructors, from elementary through college years, who taught mathematics as a subject and within an interdisciplinary lesson. The study revealed several factors that informed instructors’ beliefs, practices, and activities (B, P, & A) about teaching mathematics and interdisciplinarity through descriptions and synthesis of meanings and TRU Math analyses of artifacts. Instructors felt strongly about helping students value learning, making mathematics meaningful and joyful, and saw their students as capable problem solvers. They utilized activities to illuminate thinking and understanding of mathematics and used assessments to communicate mathematics. T he study also revealed three significant ways that instructors engaged in interdisciplinarity as seen through the practices of the Constructors, Curators, and Connectors, and referred to accordingly as the 3C’s framework. These interdisciplinary characterizations reveal instructors’ practical ways of using various approaches to practice interdisciplinarity. It also showed how frameworks like TRU Math helped assess an interdisciplinary activity’s potential to foster a deep understanding of mathematics content. The conclusions offer implications for research and practice.

The research on cooperative learning has been conducted in terms of student achievement but little is known of how training in and use of cooperative learning affects teachers. The central purpose of this study was to examine the association between training in cooperative learning and teacher job satisfaction, with special attention to the subsets of collegiality and efficacy. A second purpose was to examine how levels of job satisfaction, efficacy, and collegiality vary as a function of the following training variables: (a) setting, (b) amount of use, (c) kind of training, (d) preparation for implementation, and (e) opportunity for skill maintenance. The research was conducted via questionnaire with 129 teachers responding, which was a response rate of 71%. The questionnaire gathered data about training variables and included a 30-item Job satisfaction Survey which had subscales: 10 questions on collegiality, 15 on efficacy, and 5 on overall job satisfaction. The validity of the Job satisfaction Survey was established by pilot testing, by expert review of the questions, and by the use of an established survey as a bench mark for comparison. The research analysis involved examination of mean scores on the Job satisfaction Survey and ANOVA technique to examine the significance of variables in training and levels of job satisfaction as well as the subsets of collegiality and efficacy. Although the research did not reveal a significant relationship between training in cooperative learning and teacher job satisfaction, a significant relationship was found between several training variables and levels of satisfaction as well as collegiality and efficacy. The training variables found to be significantly associated with teacher efficacy were these: (a) use of cooperative learning at the level of seven or more times a week, (b) small group sharing and problem solving sessions for participants during training, (c) discussion with colleagues to maintain skills, and (d) the use of principal observation and feedback. The training variables found to be associated with collegiality were as follows: (a) the use of five different opportunities to maintain skills as opposed to three or fewer and (b) the use of peer coaching and feedback. Training variables associated with overall job satisfaction were: (a) small group sharing and problem solving sessions during training, (b) the use of five skill maintenance opportunities as opposed to three or fewer, and ((c) the use of peer coaching and feedback. Given the results of this study, staff development specialists should structure training to include these significant variables as sources of collegiality and efficacy as well as overall job satisfaction of teachers.

This study explored interdisciplinary studies students‟ academic and social engagement. As the review of literature demonstrated, student engagement and satisfaction are important to retention and institutions can adopt policies and practices to foster student engagement. Because interdisciplinary studies programs often struggle to maintain relevance, fostering student engagement is one way to ensure maximum student satisfaction and retention. This study identified factors of student engagement that were positively related to satisfaction and confirmed that requiring core interdisciplinary studies courses had a positive impact on engagement. A quantitative instrument, the Interdisciplinary Studies Student Engagement Survey, was adapted from the National Survey of Student Engagement questionnaire to collect self-reported responses. The following eight factors of student engagement were found to be relevant: (a) diversity-related activities, (b) shared understanding and experiences, (c) interaction with peers, (d) interaction with faculty members, (e) active and collaborative learning, (f) integrated learning, (g) out-of-class experiences, and (h) academic challenge. Respondents reported the most frequent participation in integrated learning and the least frequent participation in out-of-class experiences. It was determined that students with nontraditional characteristics tended to participate more frequently in academic engagement, whereas students with traditional characteristics tended to participate more in social engagement. In addition, enrollment in mandatory interdisciplinary core courses was found to positively influence engagement in seven of the eight identified factors. Enrollment in core courses was also positively iv related to satisfaction. Finally, all eight engagement factors positively correlated with satisfaction to some degree.