Rice Spearman Dissertation

SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING READINESS IN CLINICAL LABORATORY
SCIENTISTS:
DEVELOPING SKILLS FOR PRACTICE
by:
LORI RICE-SPEARMAN, B.S., M.S.
A DISSERTATION
IN
FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES EDUCATION
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirement for
the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Approved
Karen Alexander
Chairperson of the Committee
Sue Couch
Robin Satterwhite
LesLee Taylor
Fred Hartmeister,
Dean of the Graduate School
August 2010
Copyright 2010
Lori Rice-Spearman
Lori Rice-Spearman, August, 2010
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Gratitude is extended to the members of my doctoral committee, Dr. Sue Couch,
Dr. Robin Satterwhite, and Dr. LesLee Taylor for their advisement, encouragement, and
friendship throughout my doctoral studies and preparation of this document. Sincere
appreciation is expressed to Dr. Karen Alexander, chair of my committee, who has been
instrumental in shaping my progress throughout my doctoral program and helpful in
providing insight and guidance. I would also like to sincerely thank Dr. Virginia
Felstehausen for helping me begin this path. Her wisdom and kindness will never be
forgotten.
Acknowledgement and appreciation are extended to Dr. Lucy Guglielmino and
Dr. Allison Meshbane who permitted me to use the instrument and provided assistance
with the statistical portion of this study. I am grateful to Dean Paul Brooke for his
support and encouragement throughout this journey. Special gratitude is expressed to Dr.
Hal Larsen who saw something in me before I could see it in myself and who never let
me give up on my dream.
I am blessed to be part of an extraordinary team. Dr. Joel Hubbard, Dr. Barbara
Sawyer, Dr. Tootie Tatum, Wade Redman, Ericka Hendrix, Jacquie Chestnutt, Dr. Katie
Bennett, and Brooke Stewart-Israel, thank you for your feedback, encouragement, and
support. Jenny Bonner and Dina Barhorst, thank you both for your support and
encouragement and taking time out of your very busy lives to provide assistance
throughout my doctoral work and this study.
ii
Tish Nash, Deborah Finlayson, Cray Pickering, Melanie Ragain, and Debbie
Scioli, you have supported me, encouraged me, and celebrated with me every step of the
way.
To my family, incredible sacrifices were made so that I could have this
opportunity to fulfill my dream. Mom you have been my prayer warrior and a source of
strength throughout this process and my life. You showed me how to be a daughter,
mother, wife, sister, and friend. Dad you are my rock. You would never let me give up
and you helped me to keep the doctoral process in perspective. Sammy you continued to
love me and support me even on the worst of days. I am blessed to have been raised in a
Christian home surrounded by a loving family.
Craig Allan, Kyle Samuel, and Kacy Lauren, your love, support, and
encouragement never wavered. Because of your great sacrifice and understanding, I must
share the credit for this endeavor with each of you. Last, but certainly not least, I am
grateful to my husband Doug you have been with me every step of the way. I wonder if
you had any idea what you were getting into with me when we did our Chemistry
homework together in 1983 a marriage, three beautiful children, and a lifetime of
memories.
Without my family, friends, and colleagues, I would not have completed my
doctoral education. I am blessed.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................x
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................... xi
LIST OF APPENDICES ....................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................1
Background ............................................................................................1
Purpose of the Study ..............................................................................4
Research Questions ................................................................................5
Hypotheses .............................................................................................6
Assumptions...........................................................................................6
Limitations .............................................................................................7
Definition of Terms................................................................................7
Summary ................................................................................................9
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ..............................................................10
Conceptual Framework for Understanding
Self-direction in Learning ..............................................................10
Candys Learner-control Continuum .............................................13
Personal Responsibility Orientation Model ...................................14
iv
Garrisons Three Dimensional Model .................................................16

Self-directed Learning in Health Professions Education .....................17
Nursing ...........................................................................................17
Medicine ........................................................................................19
Dentistry.........................................................................................19
Pharmacy........................................................................................20
Summary ..............................................................................................21
III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ..............................23
Introduction ..........................................................................................23
Research Design...................................................................................23
Instrument ............................................................................................23
Considerations and Limitations ...........................................................25
Sample..................................................................................................26
COHORT #1 ..................................................................................26
COHORT #2 ..................................................................................27
Treatment ................................................................................27
Protection of Rights of Human Subjects ..............................................30
Data Collection Procedures..................................................................31
Data Analysis .......................................................................................31
IV. RESULTS ...........................................................................................33

Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................33
COHORT #1 ........................................................................................33
COHORT #2 ........................................................................................34
Hypothesis Testing.........................................................................36
Hypothesis I ..............................................................................37
Hypothesis II .............................................................................38
Summary ..............................................................................................38
V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND IMPLICATIONS .......................40
Background ..........................................................................................40
Summary of the Study .........................................................................41
Conclusions and Discussion ................................................................43
Limitations ...........................................................................................46
Future Implications for Practice...........................................................46
Recommendations for Future Research ...............................................49
Conclusions ..........................................................................................50
LIST OF REFERENCES .......................................................................................52
APPENDICES .......................................................................................................57
vi
ABSTRACT
The dynamic environment in health care, increasing body of knowledge, and
complexity of practice make it vital that clinical laboratory scientists maintain
competency by continuing to learn throughout their careers. The ability of clinical
laboratory scientists to become self-directed learners is one way of ensuring continued
competence in knowledge and skills in the clinical laboratory.
Self-directed learners are individuals who take the initiative for their learning;
diagnose their learning needs; formulate learning goals; identify human and material
resources; choose and implement learning strategies; and assess learning outcomes
(Knowles, 1975). The Self-Directed Learning Readiness Survey (also known as the
Learning Preference Assessment-LPA) can be used by students and educators to assess a
learners attitudes, skills, and behavior toward taking responsibility for their own
learning.
The purpose of this study was to examine the self-directed learning readiness of
baccalaureate students at the beginning and at the end of one year in a clinical laboratory
science program that deliberately introduced self-directed learning (SDL) activities into
the curricula. The SDL activities included (1) a unit of study in the first semester that
introduced the concept of self-directed learning, strategies for success, and resources; (2)
a self assessment of learning style; (3) scheduled, focused meetings with a faculty advisor
that included questions regarding development of appropriate learning strategies, setting
vii
goals, and analysis of current learning processes that may not be successful thus far for
the student; and (4) weekly formative assessments that were focused on an integrative
and cumulative approach to learning within the clinical laboratory science curriculum.
Clinical Laboratory Science students (n=50) participated in this study. Cohort #1
was the comparison group (n=25) and Cohort #2 received the treatment (n=25). Before
treatment, both cohorts were similar demographically and had similar overall grade
point averages.
Data were analyzed using independent t-tests and findings demonstrated that
statistically significant differences did not exist between Cohort #1 post-test SDLR
scores and Cohort #2 post-test SDLRS scores after treatment. A statistically significant
difference did exist related to GPA for students enrolled in the clinical laboratory
science program who experienced self-directed learning activities compared to the GPA
of students who did not experience self-directed learning activities. The GPA for
students enrolled in the Clinical Laboratory Science program who experienced selfdirected learning activities was higher than those students who did not receive the
treatment.
This study and its analysis of self-directed learning as a teaching method and
recognition of learner self-direction as characteristics of the learner has practical
applications for educators. Self-directed learning methods can be effective teaching
strategies to use within and outside the classroom to enhance self-direction in learning.
viii
There is evidence of using SDL in Clinical Laboratory Science education

curricula as a tool for developing critical thinking skills necessary for expert performers
as they develop as students and professionally in the years after graduation.
ix
LIST OF TABLES
2.1.
Perspectives on Self-directed Learning .....................................................17
4.1.
Breakdown of Cohorts ...............................................................................33
4.2.
Summary Pretest SDLRS for Cohorts .......................................................35
4.3.
Summary Pretest and Post-test SDLRS for Cohort #1 ..............................35
4.4.
Summary Pretest and Post-test SDLRS for Cohort #2 ..............................36
4.5.
Post-test SDLRS for Cohort #1 and Cohort #2 ..........................................37
4.6.
GPA Comparison for Cohort #1 and Cohort #2 ........................................38
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Candys Learner Control Continuum...............................................................14
2. Personal Responsibility Orientation Model .....................................................15
xi
LIST OF APPENDICES
A. Self-Directed Learning Readiness Survey .................................................58
B. Self-Directed Learning Module .................................................................63
C. VARK ........................................................................................................71
D. Advising Syllabus ......................................................................................76
E. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center Institutional
Review Board Approval ............................................................................85
F. Consent to Participate ................................................................................87
xii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The dynamic environment in health care, increasing body of knowledge, and

complexity of practice make it vital that clinical laboratory scientists maintain
competency by continuing to learn throughout their careers. Estimates show that the
knowledge base in the clinical sciences doubles approximately every four years (Mertz,
2007). The ability of clinical laboratory scientists to become self-directed learners is one
way of ensuring continued competence in knowledge and skills in the clinical laboratory.
The National Accrediting Agency for Clinical Laboratory Scientists Standards for
Clinical Laboratory Science Education requires programs to include in their curricula
exposure to continued learning in the profession; few programs, however, have indicated
how the curricula assist the students to achieve this outcome and the skills required for
the undergraduate clinical laboratory science student to develop into a self-directed
learner.
Background
Individuals entering an undergraduate program in clinical laboratory science are
university students who have spent their prior years completing core curriculum
coursework and prerequisite coursework on a general academic campus to prepare for the
program in clinical laboratory science. The nature of the core curriculum coursework and
prerequisite coursework is one that does not develop learning skills focused on
1
competency in cumulative knowledge and skills. The student completes a checklist of

coursework and has little opportunity in the formal education setting to seek independent
learning experiences outside the prescribed coursework. About 90% of all adults conduct
at least one self-directed learning project per year. Typical learners engage in five
projects, spending an average of 100 hours on each project (Tough, 1978).
It is suggested that individuals engaged in learning in the formal educational
setting are less likely to engage in self-directed learning experiences outside of the formal
setting. The origins of self-directed learning (SDL) can be traced to John Dewey who
cautioned that the teacher should be the one who guides but does not interfere with or
control the process of learning (Dewey, 1938). Dewey's theory is that experience arises
from the interaction of two principles-- continuity and interaction. Continuity is that each
experience a person has will influence his/her future, for better or for worse. Interaction
refers to the situational influence on one's experience. A learners present experience is a
function of the interaction between one's past experiences and the present situation. The
value of the experience is to be judged by the effect that experience has on the
individual's present, their future, and the extent to which the individual is able to
contribute to society (Dewey, 1938). Throughout, there is a strong emphasis on the
subjective quality of a student's experience and the necessity for the teacher to understand
the students past experiences in order to effectively design a sequence of educational
experiences to allow the learner to fulfill his/her learning objectives. SDL is the ability to
direct and regulate ones own learning experience (Brookfield, 1993).
2
Experiential learning or learning based on student experiences is the foundation of

the concept that one is able to take responsibility for ones own learning - the foundation
of self-directed learning. Experiential learning is a term used to describe two types of
learning self-teaching and experiential education. Self-teaching is learning that comes
about through reflection on everyday experiences and is organized by learners themselves
(Smith, 2003). Experiential education is learning through programs and activities
structured by others. An experiential educator's role is to organize and facilitate
experiences under the assumption that this will lead to genuine (meaningful and longlasting) learning.
Contemporary adult learning theorists recommend that adult learning experiences
include active learner involvement, collaborative faculty-student relationships and
facilitation of SDL (Brockett & Heimstra, 1991; Knowles, 1975). Knowles describes
activities associated with SDL as a process in which individuals take the initiative, with
or without the help of others, in diagnosing their learning needs, formulating learning
goals, identifying human and material resources for learning, choosing and implementing
appropriate learning strategies, and evaluating learning outcomes(Knowles, 1975, p. 18).
When traditional university students enter an undergraduate preprofessional
program in clinical laboratory science, there is usually a period of transition to adapt to
the health professions education environment. The student is required to maintain
acceptable attendance in the classroom and laboratory, begin the process of developing
professional skills, assimilate large volumes of information, form study habits that ensure
3
cumulative comprehension of knowledge and skills, and develop self-directed learning

(SDL) techniques that enable the student to succeed within the clinical laboratory science
program and in the practice of the profession. Knowles (1975) states that the goal of
education is to teach the student how to learn on his/her own. This should be a goal in
pre-professional schools, such as allied health, nursing, pharmacy, dentistry, and
medicine. These learners must develop the attitudes and skills required for continued
professional learning using the SDL mode, if they choose to use that learning mode
(Wiley, 1982). Lowery (2003) asserts that adult educators have found that some adults
are incapable of engaging in self-directed learning because they lack independence,
confidence, or resources. Increasingly, health professions programs in medicine, nursing,
dentistry, and pharmacy are attempting to examine SDL readiness of their students and
related activities within their curricula to determine the value and appropriateness of SDL
in the health professions. These examinations will be addressed more fully in Chapter II,
Review of Literature.
Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to examine the self-directed
learning readiness of baccalaureate students at the beginning and at the end of one year in
a clinical laboratory science program that has deliberately introduced SDL activities into
the curricula. The SDL activities included the following:
1. a unit of study in the first semester that introduces the concept of self-directed
learning, strategies for success, and resources;
4
2. a self assessment of learning style;

3. scheduled, focused meetings with a faculty advisor that include questions
regarding development of appropriate learning strategies, setting goals, and
analysis of current learning processes that may not be successful thus far for
the student; and
4. weekly formative assessment that is focused on an integrative and cumulative
approach to learning within the clinical laboratory science curriculum.
The self-directed learning readiness (SDLR) survey assesses a learners attitudes, skills,
and behavior toward taking responsibility for their own learning.
The SDLR score and
GPA were compared at the end of the year to determine if SDLR was linked to academic
success in the clinical laboratory science program.
Research Questions
1. Do self-directed learning readiness scores differ for undergraduate students
transitioning from a traditional academic environment into a pre-professional
program of study when they are deliberately exposed to self-directed learning
activities in the clinical laboratory science curriculum when compared to the
scores of undergraduate students transitioning from a traditional academic
environment into a pre-professional program of study who have not been
exposed to self-directed learning activities?
2. Do self-directed learning activities impact grade point average (GPA) in
students enrolled in clinical laboratory science curricula?
5
Hypotheses
The following two null hypotheses were tested in the study:
1. No statistically significant differences exist in self-directed learning readiness
scores for undergraduate students transitioning from a traditional academic
environment into a pre-professional program of study when they are
deliberately exposed to self-directed learning activities in the clinical
laboratory science curriculum when compared to the scores of undergraduate
students transitioning from a traditional academic environment into a preprofessional program of study who have not been exposed to self-directed
learning activities.
2. No statistically significant differences exist in GPA for students enrolled in
the clinical laboratory science program who experienced self-directed learning
activities compared to the GPA of students who did not experience selfdirected learning activities.
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made for this study:
1.
An individuals readiness for self-directed learning can be determined

through the use of the Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale
questionnaire (Guglielmino, 1977).
2.
Participants will respond truthfully on the questionnaire.
3.
Entering grade point averages (GPA) are relatively the same for each
Cohort.
Limitations
The following limitations to the generalizability of the study were identified:
1.
The sample was comprised of clinical laboratory science students at one

university. The sample was a sample of convenience, not selected to be
representative of students across the nation.
2.
The sample utilized self-reported data; therefore, accuracy depended upon

the honesty of the respondents.
3.
The research design was subject to pretest sensitization where the threat of
improved performance on a post-test was a result of having taken a pretest
(Gay, 2006).
Definition of Terms
The following definitions were used for the purposes of this study:
Autodidaxy: The learner conceives, plans and executes learning projects outside
the formal educational setting (Candy, 1991).
Comprehensive Knowledge: Comprehensive knowledge is an understanding and
application of an entire field of study.
Critical Thinking: A disciplined process, by the learner, of actively and skillfully
conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information
7
gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or

communication , as a guide to belief and action (Scriven & Paul, 2004).
Education: A process for managing external conditions that facilitate learning
(Boshier, 1983).
Experiential Learning: A term used to describe two types of learning selfteaching and experiential education (Smith, 2003).
Guided Discovery: Guided discovery nurtures students mental processes of
constructing their own understanding of a subject (Clark, 1999).
Integrative Curriculum: An integrative curriculum organizational approach is one
which cuts across subject-matter lines to focus upon comprehensive life problems or
broad-based areas of study that bring together the various segments of the curriculum into
meaningful association (Good, 1973).
Learning: An internal change process (Boshier, 1983).
Self-directed Learning (SDL): Self-direction in learning is a combination of
forces both within and outside the individual that stress the learner accepting everincreasing responsibility for decisions associated with the learning process (Brockett &
Hiemstra, 1991). Self-directed learning is a personal process of learning how to learn,
how to change, and how to adapt (Rogers, 1983).
Self-regulated Learning: Self-regulated learning involves the active process of
goal-directed, self-control of behavior, motivation and cognition for academic tasks by an
individual student (Pintrich, 1995).
8
Summary
The research problem of this study was to investigate the efficacy of deliberately
introducing tools associated with learner self-direction as a teaching method for preparing
clinical laboratory science students for entry-level practice. Essential for development of
learner self-direction is active learner involvement and collaborative faculty-student
relationships. The focus of this study was to examine self-directed learning readiness
between students who experience a traditional CLS curriculum and students who
experience a curriculum adjusted to deliberately introduce self-directed learning
concepts.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The review of literature for this study was focused on research from primary
sources in the field of adult education, specifically self-directed learning. A review of the
conceptual framework for understanding self-direction in adult learning was conducted
with an emphasis in three areas: establishing the knowledge base in self-direction;
quantitative approaches to studying self-direction; and expanding the knowledge base
through qualitative approaches. Further inspection was focused on the process of
facilitating self-directed learning and enhancing learner self-direction. A secondary focus
of the review of literature was on the research based literature primarily associated with
the analysis and application of self-directed learning concepts in health professions
education.
Conceptual Framework for Understanding Self-direction in Learning

Chickering (1964) presented and discussed five characteristics identified by the
faculty at Goddard College as the characteristics that would describe an independent
(self-directed) learner:
1. Interdependent: Is attuned to the whole; is amiable and peace loving; relates to
others but does not depend on them; recognizes responsibilities.
2. Venturesome: Confronts questions and problems willingly; is open to
experience; is self-starting; is able to disagree; discovers new possibilities.
10
3. Resourceful: Knows how to use resources for learning; recognizes when help
is needed; digs up material; is able to organize.
4. Persistent: Can stick to a position; is working for his/her own satisfaction; has
the energy and determination to keep at a job; has quiet self-confidence.
5. Reflective: Has a sense of what is important; has direction; knows his own
strengths and weaknesses; discovers through investigation; is flexible in view
of new evidence. (p. 39)
Self-direction in learning from the life-long learning perspective of Kidd (1973)
emphasizes that the purpose of adult education is to make the subject a continuing, innerdirected self-operating learner. Knowles (1975) stressed the phases of a learning process
and provided a broad definition of self-directed learning as a process in which individuals
take the initiative, with or without the help of others, in diagnosing their learning needs,
formulating learning goals, identifying human material resources for learning, choosing
and implementing appropriate learning strategies, and evaluating learning outcomes.
Guglielmino (1977) concluded that a self-directed learner is:
One who exhibits initiative, independence, and persistence in learning;
one who accepts responsibility for his/her own learning and views
problems as challenges and not obstacles; one who is capable of selfdiscipline and has a high degree of curiosity; who has a strong desire to
learn or change and is self-confident; who is able to use basic study skills,
organize his/her time and set an appropriate pace for learning, and to
develop a plan for completing work; one who enjoys learning and has a
tendency to be goal-oriented. (p. 73)
The learning process perspective introduced by Tough (1979) focused on the
learning process in which the learner assumes primary control. His research emphasized
11
the concept of self-planned learning. Mocker and Spear (1982) introduced a different
construct by suggesting that self-directed learning is a function of learners perceived
control versus institution control over the purposes and processes of learning. Mocker
and Spear included self-directed learning in a descriptive model of lifelong learning
based entirely on the locus of control for decision making about the objectives and means
of learning. The model suggested a two-by-two matrix of learner and institution; the selfdirected learning situation occurs when learners, not the institution, control both the
learning objectives and the means of learning. The following situations occupy the other
cells of the matrix: (1) formal learning, in which institutions, not learners, control
objectives and the means of learning; (2) nonformal learning, in which learners control
the objectives and institutions control the means; and (3) informal learning, in which
institutions control the objectives but learners control the means of learning. Gibbons
and Phillips (1982) offered a different view in which self-education could only occur
outside of formal institutions, not inside them. They offered that true self-education
could only occur when the learner is not compelled to learn and others are not compelled
to teach them.
An ongoing debate within the literature is the discussion of self-directed learning
as an instructional method or personality characteristic. As discussed earlier, selfdirection in learning has a strong foundation as an instructional process in which the
learner assumes a primary role in planning, implementing, and evaluating the experience.
This research approach operationalizes self-directed learning as an instructional process.
12
Fellenz (1985) attempted to introduce the concept that self-direction could be viewed in
two ways - the first is that self-direction is adopted during the process of learning; the
second is that self-direction is a psychological state attained by an individual in the
personal development process. Oddi (1987) further distinguished between the process
perspective and the personality perspective with development of the Continuing Learning
Inventory in an effort to develop a theoretical framework for understanding personality
characteristics of self-directed continuing learners.
Candys Learner Control Continuum

Candy (1988) offered further support for distinction between the two concepts
through a critical analysis of the literature and synthesis of research findings in selfdirection. His findings revealed that self direction has a foundation as a personal quality
or attribute and as the independent pursuit of learning outside formal instructional
settings. Candy goes further to suggest a third construct of learner control or selfdirection as a way of organizing instruction. Candy asserts that the phrase selfdirection referenced in the literature can be narrowed down to four ideas. The first and
second focus on self-direction as a method or process: (1) the level of control the learner
has over the mode or style of the instruction; (2) autodidaxy (teach-yourself, or the
independent/self-guided pursuit of learning). The third and fourth are focused on selfdirection as an outcome: (3) the goal of self-management of learning or taking
responsibility for his/her own learning; (4) self-determination of his/her destiny. Figure 1
illustrates Candys Learner Control Continuum (Jennings, 2007, p. 518).
13
Figure 1. Candys Learner Control Continuum
Personal Responsibility Orientation Model

Brockett and Hiemstra (1991) suggest a model in which self-direction in learning
is viewed as being comprised of both instructional method processes (self-directed
learning) and personality characteristics (learner self-direction). The Personal
Responsibility Orientation (PRO) model of self-direction in adult learning is designed to
recognize both. Figure 2 illustrates Brockett & Hiemstras PRO model (Brockett &
Hiemstra, 1991, p. 25).
The foundation of the model is based in personal responsibility in which the
learner assumes ownership for their own thoughts and actions. Within the context of
learning, it is the ability and/or willingness of individuals to take control of their own
learning that determines their potential for self-direction. Brockett & Hiemstra assert that
the term self-direction in learning is a broad concept that includes both self-directed
learning and learner self-direction. Self-directed learning is the external factors that
14
Figure 2. Personal Responsibility Orientation Model
facilitate the learner taking primary responsibility for planning, implementing, and
evaluating his/her own learning. Learner self-direction is the internal factors or
personality characteristics that predispose the learner toward accepting responsibility for
his/her thoughts and actions as a learner. Brockett & Hiemstra (1991) assert that learners
have choices about the direction he/she pursues as a learner and responsibility for
accepting the consequences of the actions as a learner are linked to these choices. The
PRO model serves as a construct for further understanding of self-direction and serves as
a framework for theory, research, and practice.
15
Garrisons Three Dimensional Model

Garrison's Three Dimensional model of SDL also includes the perspectives of SDL as
a personal attribute as well as a learning process. According to Garrison (1997), SDL is
accomplished by three dimensions interacting with each other: self-management, selfmonitoring, and motivation. In educational settings, self-management involves the learner
assessing available resources and determining their own needs. Garrison explained
resources as tools accessible to the learner that facilitate learner understanding. Selfmonitoring involves the learner assessing their progress and achievement towards
meeting his/her learning goals. The motivation dimension relates to the external and
internal forces that impact the learners desire to obtain his/her learning goals. The focus
of Garrisons (1997) model is on resource use, learning strategies use, and motivation to
learn. Table 2.1 is a summation of the perspectives associated with self-directed learning
(Song & Hall, 2007, p. 28). Garrison further explained that learner control did not mean
independence, but rather collaboration with other people within the context. Like Candy
(1988), as well as Brockett and Hiemstra (1991), Garrison (1997) also recognized the context
factor in his model in that he specified self-management of resources in a given context.
16
Table 2.1. Perspectives on Self-directed Learning

Perspectives
Description
Candy (1991)
Personal
Attribute
Moral, emotional,
and intellectual
management
Learner
autonomy over
instruction
Environment
where learning
takes place
Personal
Autonomy
Self-management
Learner Control
Autodidaxy
Process
Context
Self-direction is
context bound
Brockett &
Hiemstra (1991)
Goal Orientation
(personal attribute)
Process Orientation
(learner control)
Garrison (1997)
Self-management
(use of resources)
Motivation
Self-monitoring
Social Context: role

of institutions and
policies
Self-directed Learning in Health Professions Education

Self-directed learning readiness (SDLR) has been studied across a broad spectrum
of adult groups within health professions education, including nursing, medicine,
pharmacy, and dentistry all of which have licensure requirements that mandate
continuing education in the profession.
Nursing
The earliest investigation with nurses was a diagnostic study by Savoie (1980)
utilizing the self-directed learning readiness score to predict success in continuing
education courses for nurses where learners were expected to assume a high degree of
self-direction. This study found a positive relationship between SDLRS scores and
course grades. Box (1983) investigated the difference among first-level students, secondlevel students, and graduates of an associate degree nursing program and found that
SDLRS scores correlated to grade-point average. There were no significant differences
17
in SDLRS scores among the three groups. Box also noted a positive correlation between
SDLRS scores and grade point average. Wiley (1982) investigated the effects of a
process-oriented, self-directed learning project and the personal preference for structure
on self-directed learning readiness among 104 undergraduate nursing students aged 20-21
years old. Wiley noted that SDLRS scores did not increase from pretest to post-test for
this group of undergraduate students. Crook (1985) examined the predictive validity of
the SDLRS to predict success in the undergraduate nursing classroom. There was a
significant correlation found between SDLRS score and peer nomination (fellow
classmates who identified a member as self-directed) and end of year grades. Murray
(1988) utilized a pretest post-test design to determine the effects of participation of
undergraduate nursing students in a clinical internship on SDL. It was found that the
experimental group who participated in the clinical internship differed significantly
between the pretest and post-test SDLRS scores. In addition it was noted that the SDLRS
scores were related to GPA and a desire for advanced education in nursing. Palumbo
(1989) utilized a pretest post-test design to measure change in SDLRS scores of
undergraduate nurses over time (1.5 years). There was a significant change in the SDLR
scores. Fisher, King, and Tague (2001) attempted to develop a SDLRS specific to
nursing practice utilizing the Delphi technique used by Guglielmino. Williams (2004)
utilized the SDLRS scores to examine the effect on nursing students exposed to a
problem based learning program on self-directed learning. No significant findings were
reported.
18
Medicine
Frisby (1991) conducted one of the earliest studies investigating self-directed
learning readiness in medical students among two groups: the independent study students
and the lecture-discussion students. Frisby found no difference among the two groups.
Shokar, Shokar, Romero, and Bulik (2002) examined SDLRS scores and outcomes
among medical students at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. The
mean SDLRS score of the 182 medical students tested was 235.81, well into the aboveaverage range for the SDLRS and significantly higher than the mean of the general
population ,214, established by Guglielmino. Their scores also correlated positively with
their final clerkship grades and their clinical preceptor scores.
Dentistry
Hendricson (2006), as a member of the American Dental Education Association
Commission on Changes and Innovation in Dental Education, examined the development
of problem-solving, critical thinking, and self-directed learning in dental education
programs. One of the objectives of the Commission was to provide guidance to dental
schools related to curriculum design. The Commission issued a white paper summarizing
the evidence related to educational best practices for helping dental students acquire the
capacity to function as an entry-level general dentist or to be a better candidate to begin
advanced studies. Three issues were addressed, with special emphasis on the third: 1)
What constitutes expertise, and when does an individual become an expert? 2) What are
the differences between novice and expert thinking? and 3) What educational best
19
practices can help our students acquire mental capacities associated with expert function,
including critical thinking and self-directed learning? The purpose of the review was to
provide a benchmark that faculty and academic planners could use to assess the degree to
which their curricula included learning experiences associated with development of
problem-solving, critical thinking, self-directed learning, and other cognitive skills
necessary for dental school graduates to ultimately become expert performers as they
develop professionally in the years after graduation. The Commission asserted that the
capacity for self-directed learning is required to implement the reflective judgment
process and underlies many of the dispositions needed for critical thinking. SDL is the
ability to direct and regulate ones own learning experience (Brookfield, 1993).
Essentially the same educational strategies have been proposed to develop critical
thinking and self-directed learning. These best practices include providing students with
frequent opportunities to use the reflective judgment process to analyze problems
presented in case scenarios. The data seeking and analysis required to accomplish the
reflective judgment process are thought to help students acquire SDL skills in a learn by
doing approach, and there is evidence that students who routinely use this process to
explore problems develop more sophisticated SDL than do students in lecture-based
curricula (Blumberg, 2000).
Pharmacy
Finally, Huynh et al. (2007) studied the predictors of readiness for self-directed
learning among third and fourth year pharmacists. Accreditation Council for Pharmacy
20
Education Standards requires schools and colleges of pharmacy to support the

development of self-directed lifelong learners. The objective of this study was to
characterize the self-directedness of third and fourth year student pharmacists and to
identify characteristics that are associated with readiness for self-directed learning. The
Self-directed Learning Readiness Scale was administered to third and fourth year student
pharmacists. A total of 77 (67.0%) third-year student pharmacists and 100 (84.7%) fourth
year student pharmacists completed the questionnaire. No significant difference was
found between the mean scores on SDLRS for third (157 21) and fourth (154 20)
year student pharmacists (p = 0.39). Huynh asserts that readiness for self-directed
learning may be an intrinsic characteristic that is relatively stable and not readily
influenced by external factors.
At the time of this project, no study has been identified involving the analysis of
self-directed learning readiness among clinical laboratory science students, nor has the
impact of deliberate inclusion of self-directed learning activities in clinical laboratory
science curricula been examined.
Summary
Candy (1991), Brockett and Heimstra (1991), and Garrison (1997) have
established a theoretical framework for investigating both instructional method processes
(self-directed learning) and personality characteristics (learner self-direction). This is
evident in the broad context of adult education and the more specific examination of selfdirected learning and learner self-direction in health care professions education. Studies
21
have been conducted that have examined the effects of self-directed learning as a learning
process (Savoie, 1980; Box, 1984; Frisby, 1991; and Hendricson, 2006) and examination
of developing attributes or characteristics that lead to learner self-direction (Wiley, 1982;
Murray, 1988; and Palumbo, 1989). Finally, there is evidence of using SDL in health care
education curricula as a tool for developing critical thinking skills necessary for expert
performers as they develop as students and professionally in the years after graduation.
22
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to examine the self-directed
learning readiness of baccalaureate students at the beginning and at the end of one year in
a clinical laboratory science program that has deliberate self-directed learning activities
incorporated into the curricula.
Research Design
For this research project pretest scores and post-test scores of two cohorts were
compared. Cohort #1 was the control group which did not receive the treatment. Cohort
#2 did receive the treatment. The independent variable in this study was the treatment,
which was the exposure to deliberate self-directed learning activities incorporated into
the curricula. The dependent variable was the post-test SDLRS of the students.
Instrument
With the influences of Cyril Houle and Allen Tough, Lucy Guglielmino, (1977)
developed the Self-Directed Learning Readiness Survey (also known as the Learning
Preference Assessment-LPA) to assess a learners attitudes, skills, and behavior toward
taking responsibility for their own learning. This affective instrument was designed as a
self-report survey that focuses on eight areas related to self-directed learning: love of
learning, life-long learning, self-concept, self-understanding, tolerance of ambiguity in
23
learning experiences, responsibility related to learning, initiative to organize learning

activities, and creative approaches to learning activities. The self-directed learning
readiness scale (SDLRS) is a self report questionnaire with 58 likert type items (1=almost
never true of me; I hardly ever feel this way to 5=almost always true of me; there are very
few times when I dont feel this way) designed to determine the extent to which
individuals perceive themselves as possessing the skills and attitudes associated with
SDL (Guglielmino, 1977) (Appendix A). The SDLRS test results are an overall score of
self-directed learning readiness which ranges from a low of 58 (indicating a low level of
ability to direct ones own learning) to a high of 290 (indicating a high level of ability to
direct ones own learning). The average score for adults completing the SDLRS is 214
(Guglielmino, 1977).
This Likerttype response survey was developed from a three round Delphi study
that included fourteen identified experts in the field of self-directed learning and adult
learning. The first instrument was field tested on 307 individuals in Georgia, Canada,
and Virginia. To estimate internal reliability, Guglielmino used the Cronbach-Alpha
procedure on the obtained scores. The reliability estimate was 0.87. Guglielmino
identified eight independent factors through factor analysis. Some items were added and
restructured, and the second sampling was over 3,151 individuals. The reliability
estimate was determined to be 0.94 (McCune, Guglielmino, & Garcia, 1990). Most
published studies on populations over twenty years of age report similar reliability figures
that fall within a range of 0.72 0.96. In addition, to internal reliability estimates,
24
Finestone (1984) and Wiley (1982) reported test-retest reliability coefficients of 0.82 and
0.79. Merriam and Caffarella (1999) and Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner (2007)
reviewed studies that examined the validity and reliability of the instrument. They
concluded that the SDLRS was the most appropriate tool for measuring learner beliefs,
values, attitudes, and behaviors related to self-directed learning. Delahaye and Choy
(2000) conducted a comprehensive review of the SDLRS and examined content,
construct, and criterion validity along with stability (test-retest) and internal consistency.
Delahaye and Choy found the instrument to be valid and reliable for the assessment of
learner self-perception of self-directed learning.
Considerations and Limitations

Delahaye and Choy (2000) asserted that the weaknesses of the survey were the
self-report aspect that has the potential to lead to biases such as telling the researcher
what they want to know, inconsistent self concept, and pretest post-test effect if used in
that manner. Gay (2006) asserts that testing is more likely to be threatened when the time
between the pretest and post-test is short and the information for testing is factual. For
this study, the pretest and post-test were administered approximately 10 months apart.
The information related to the survey is not fact based. The participant is self-reporting
their self-directed learning skills and attitudes. Despite these concerns, the SDLRS is
considered the most widely used instrument in evaluating learning self-direction. It has
been translated into more than 20 languages and applied internationally.
25
Sample
The convenience sample consisted of all the Clinical Laboratory Science students
enrolled in the first year of the undergraduate baccalaureate Clinical Laboratory Science
program within the School of Allied Health Sciences at the Texas Tech University Health
Sciences Center Lubbock campus. The inclusion criteria were students who met the
requirements for admission to the Clinical Laboratory Science program which included
the following:
1. a minimum cumulative and science GPA of 2.5,
2. completion of prerequisite coursework,
3. completion of an application that includes an essay, and
4. participation in a structured interview conducted by members of the Clinical
Laboratory Science admissions committee.
COHORT #1
Students in the first cohort (comparison group) were administered the (pretest)
Self-Directed Learning Readiness Survey the first day of class, August 2007. The first
cohort did not participate in a curriculum that included deliberate self-directed learning
activities. The curriculum experienced by Cohort #1 was the traditional CLS curriculum
utilized by university-based CLS programs in the U.S. The (post-test) Self-Directed
Learning Readiness Survey was administered again to the first cohort at the completion
of one year (two semesters) of the CLS curriculum. The sample size was 29 students.
Four participants did not complete the post-test. One student withdrew from the program
26
and three students were dismissed due to poor academic performance. The final sample
for Cohort #1 was 25 students.
COHORT #2
Students in the second cohort were administered the (pretest) Self-Directed
Learning Readiness Survey the first day of class, August 2008. The second cohort
participated in a curriculum designed to improve self-directed learning readiness by
incorporating self-directed learning activities (treatment).
Treatment
The treatment included SDL activities comprised of a learning module in the first
semester that introduced the concept of self-directed learning (Appendix B); a self
assessment of learning style using the VARK (Appendix C); an Advising Syllabus that
provided a structured advising schedule led by an assigned faculty member (Appendix
D); and weekly formative assessments that were structured to develop cumulative
learning within the clinical laboratory science curriculum.
1. A learning module on the SDL process was prepared for implementation of
the treatment. Preparation of the module began with a review of the linear
model of the SDL process developed by Knox (1973) that identified five
components: (1) identification of needs, (2) awareness of the facilitators and
barriers to learning, (3) selection of objectives, (4) selection of learning
activities, and (5) evaluation of learning. In addition, Brockett & Heimstra
27
(1985) identified strategies that educators can use to facilitate self-directed

learning: (1) help the learner identify a starting point for the project, (2) create
a partnership with the learner, (3) make the learner aware of objectives,
learning strategies, and resources, (4) teach inquiry skills, decision making,
personal development, and self-assessment, and (5) create an environment of
openness and trust. The learning module to introduce the concept of SDL
consisted of objectives, content, and resources and was presented to Cohort #2
early in the fall semester.
2. The VARK is a self assessment tool to determine a students learning
preference. The acronym VARK stands for Visual, Aural, Read/write, and
Kinesthetic sensory modalities that are utilized by the learner for gathering
and processing information. Fleming and Mills (1992) suggested the four
categories that seemed to reflect the experiences of the students in the process
of learning. Each category is defined as follows:
a. Visual (V): This is a preference for information to be presented in
map, diagram, or chart form rather than in words or lecture form.
b.
Aural/Auditory (A): This is a preference for information that is heard

or spoken. Lectures, tutorials, group discussion, and email are
effective tools for learning.
c. Read/write (R): This preference is for information displayed as words

with an emphasis on text-based input and output, reading, and writing
28
in all its forms. PowerPoint, Internet, and dictionaries are effective

tools for learning.
d. Kinesthetic (K): This preference refers to the use of experiences and
practice (simulated and real) to understand information. Case studies,
videos, and laboratory sessions are effective tools for learning.
For the purposes of this study, the VARK was used in one-to-one student
counseling with a faculty advisor. Each student completed the questionnaire
and was advised he/she could select more than one option for any question. If
the student determined all of the options were appropriate, he/she were asked
to indicate what their first preference might be. Most of the students
completed the questionnaire in four to six minutes. After the questionnaire
was completed each student was asked to sum the occurrences of his/her
preferences for each mode. This procedure resulted in four scores, one for
each modal preference. Students could select more than one option for each
question and omit questions. The sum of the four preference scores on the
questionnaire varied among individual students. The scores were then perused
by the student and advisor and a modal preference was determined based on a
simple numerical dominance of one mode over others.
3. The Advising Syllabus (Appendix D) is a structured advising schedule led by

an assigned faculty member. Preparation of the Advising Syllabus began with
a review of instructional methods that facilitate development of self-directed
29
learning. After the Advising Syllabus was prepared, it was given to two
experienced advisors for review. The advisors made a few suggestions for
revision, and those suggestions were incorporated into the final draft. Prior to
the implementation of the Advising Syllabus, faculty were trained in a 4 hour
workshop that addressed topics on how to conduct focused meetings that
include questions regarding development of appropriate learning strategies,
setting goals, and analysis of current learning processes that may not have
been successful for the student.
4.
Weekly cumulative, formative assessments were developed to promote

cumulative learning within the clinical laboratory science curriculum for each
semester (fall and spring).
The (post-test) Self-Directed Learning Readiness Survey was administered again

to the second cohort at the completion of one year (two semesters) of the CLS curriculum
(May 2009). The sample size was 27 students. Two participants did not complete the
post-test. Both withdrew from the program due to personal reasons. No students were
dismissed due to poor academic performance. The final sample size for Cohort #2 was
25 students.
Protection of Rights of Human Subjects

University procedures were followed by requesting permission to pursue research
involving human subjects. This study qualified for expedited review at Texas Tech
30
University Health Sciences Center (TTUHSC). Permission from the Institutional Review
Board was granted for data collection (IRB# L09-043) (Appendix E).
Data Collection Procedures

The SDLR questionnaire (pretest) was administered by the researcher during
orientation (fall term) for Cohort #1 and Cohort# 2. The students were informed of their
choice to voluntarily participate and consent to participate was obtained (Appendix F).
After completion of two semesters (fall and spring terms) the SDLRS questionnaire
(post-test) was administered by the researcher at the end of the spring term.
Data Analysis
Statistical package GraphPad InStat, version 3, is a statistical tool to help
researchers calculate frequently used statistical tests efficiently. The following two null
hypotheses were tested in the study:
1. No statistically significant differences exist in self-directed learning readiness
scores for undergraduate students transitioning from a traditional academic
environment into a pre-professional program of study when they are
deliberately exposed to self-directed learning activities in the clinical
laboratory science curriculum when compared to the scores of undergraduate
students transitioning from a traditional academic environment into a preprofessional program of study who have not been exposed to self-directed
learning activities.
31
Biographical data (gender, entering GPA, and exit GPA) were analyzed by computing
measures of central tendency and measures of dispersion. These were utilized to
determine homogeneity of Cohort #1 (comparison group) and Cohort #2 (treatment
group). To test the hypothesis the pretest SDLRS scores for Cohort #1 and Cohort #2
were analyzed by conducting independent samples t-tests to determine if the cohorts are
equivalent at the start of the study. Levene's test was calculated to determine
homogeneity of variance. In addition, t-test (0.05 level of significance) was computed to
compare post-test SDLRS test scores. Cohort #1 and Cohort #2 were determined to be
equivalent on the pretest scores.
2. No statistically significant differences exist in GPA for students enrolled in
the clinical laboratory science program who experienced self-directed learning
activities compared to the GPA of students who did not experience selfdirected learning activities.
To test the hypothesis the GPA at the end of one year (two semesters) for students in
Cohort #1 and Cohort #2 were analyzed. The t-test (one tailed at .05 level of
significance) was computed.
The analysis of the post-test SDLRS for Cohort #1 and Cohort #2 provided data to
determine if self-directed learning activities incorporated into the curricula of clinical
laboratory science programs had an effect on self-directed learning readiness. The
analysis of the GPA for Cohort #1 and Cohort #2 provided data for analysis to determine
32
if self-directed learning activities were related to the grade point average of the study
participants.
33
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
This chapter reports the findings of the study that investigated the effects of
incorporating self-directed learning activities on the SDLR scores and grade point
average (GPA) of clinical laboratory science students. The chapter identifies each of the
hypotheses posed in the study, describes how the data were analyzed, and explains the
results. Statistical analysis, including descriptive statistics, the Self-Directed Learning
Readiness Survey, GPA, and t-tests were used to answer the two hypotheses identified in
Chapter 1.
Descriptive Statistics
Students enrolled in the Clinical Laboratory Science program participated in this
study. Table 4.1 provides a breakdown of the students in Cohort #1 and Cohort #2. All
50 students signed consent forms to participate in the study.
Table 4.1. Breakdown of Cohorts.
Cohort #1
15
10
25
3.31
Female
Male
Total Number of Students
Mean Entering GPA
Cohort #2
19
6
25
3.30
COHORT #1
Students in the first cohort (comparison group) were administered the (pretest)
Self-Directed Learning Readiness Survey the first day of class, August 2007. The first
34
cohort did not participate in a curriculum that included deliberate self-directed learning
activities. The curriculum experienced by Cohort #1 was the traditional CLS curriculum
utilized by university-based CLS programs in the U.S. The (post-test) Self-Directed
Learning Readiness Survey was administered again to the first cohort at the completion
of one year (two semesters) of the CLS curriculum. The sample size was 29 students.
Four participants did not complete the post-test. The final sample for Cohort #1 was 25
students. The mean entering grade point average (GPA) for Cohort #1 was 3.31. The
entering GPA for each student was calculated based on prerequisite coursework required
for admission into the CLS program.
COHORT #2
Students in the second cohort were administered the (pretest) Self-Directed
Learning Readiness Survey the first day of class, August 2008. The second cohort
participated in a curriculum designed to improve self-directed learning readiness by
incorporating self-directed learning activities (treatment). The mean entering GPA for
Cohort #2 was 3.30. The entering GPA for each student was calculated based on
prerequisite coursework required for admission into the CLS program.
The self-directed learning readiness scale (SDLRS) is a self report questionnaire
with 58 likert type items (1=almost never true of me; I hardly ever feel this way to
5=almost always true of me; there are very few times when I dont feel this way)
designed to determine the extent to which individuals perceive themselves as possessing
the skills and attitudes associated with SDL (Guglielmino, 1977/1978). The SDLRS was
35
administered to Cohort #1 and Cohort #2 at orientation August 2008 and August 2009
respectively. Table 4.2 provides a summary of data of the pretest SDLRS for Cohort #1
and Cohort #2.
Table 4.2. Summary Pretest SDLRS for Cohorts.
Parameter
Mean
Number of Participants
Standard Deviation
Standard Error
Minimum Score
Maximum Score
Median
Lower 95% Confidence Interval
Upper 95% Confidence Interval
Cohort #1 Pretest
236.76
25
19.197
3.839
188.00
277.00
236.00
228.84
244.68
Cohort #2 Pretest
221.12
25
20.397
4.079
172.00
256.00
224.00
212.70
229.54
Cohort #1 did not participate in a curriculum that included deliberate self-directed

learning activities. The curriculum experienced by Cohort #1 was the traditional CLS
curriculum utilized by university-based CLS programs in the U.S. Table 4.3 provides a
summary of data of the pretest and post-test SDLRS for Cohort #1.
Table 4.3. Summary Pretest and Post-test SDLRS for Cohort #1.
Parameter
Mean
Standard Deviation
Standard Error
Minimum Score
Maximum Score
Median
Cohort #1 Pretest
236.76
25
19.197
3.839
188.00
277.00
236.00
228.84
244.68
36
Cohort #1 Post-test
228.40
25
20.881
4.176
175.00
270.00
230.00
219.78
237.02
The pretest and post-test scores for Cohort #1 were compared using the paired t-test. The
two-tailed P value at 0.05 level of significance was 0.0158. The t = 2.599 with 24
degrees of freedom. The statistical difference between the means is considered
significant.
Cohort #2 participated in a curriculum designed to enhance self-directed learning
readiness by incorporating self-directed learning activities (treatment) into the CLS
curriculum. Table 4.4 provides a summary of data of the pretest and post-test SDLRS for
Cohort #2.
Table 4.4. Summary Pretest and Post-test SDLRS for Cohort #2.
Parameter
Mean
Standard Deviation
Standard Error
Minimum Score
Maximum Score
Median
Cohort #2 Pretest
221.12
25
20.397
4.079
172.00
256.00
224.00
212.70
229.54
Cohort #2 Post-test
226.32
25
21.704
4.341
165.00
256.00
229.00
217.36
235.28
The pretest and post-test scores for Cohort #2 were compared using the paired t-test. The
two-tailed P value at 0.05 level of significance was 0.1708. The t = 1.412 with 24
degrees of freedom. The statistical difference between the means is not considered
significant.
37
Hypothesis Testing
The hypotheses for this study were designed to examine if including deliberate
self-directed learning activities into the CLS curriculum would affect the extent to which
individuals perceive themselves as possessing the skills and attitudes associated with
SDL. Two null hypotheses were addressed. Results were identified as being statistically
significant at or beyond the 0.05 level.
Hypothesis I
No statistically significant differences exist in self-directed learning readiness
scores for undergraduate students transitioning from a traditional academic environment
into a pre-professional program of study when they are deliberately exposed to selfdirected learning activities in the clinical laboratory science curriculum when compared
to the scores of undergraduate students transitioning from a traditional academic
environment into a pre-professional program of study who have not been exposed to selfdirected learning activities.
The independent samples t-test was calculated to compare the post-test SDLRS
for Cohort #1 and Cohort #2. Table 4.5 provides calculation details. The two-tailed p
value at 0.05 level of significance was calculated 0.7314 with tcv = 0.3453 with 48
degrees of freedom. The calculated value did not exceed the critical value at a level of
significance at 0.05; therefore the null hypothesis was not rejected.
38
Table 4.5. Post-test SDLRS for Cohort #1 and Cohort #2.

Parameter
Mean
Standard Deviation
Standard Error
Minimum Score
Maximum Score
Median
Cohort #1 Post-test
228.40
25
20.881
4.176
175.00
270.00
230.00
219.78
236.02
Cohort #2 Post-test
226.32
25
21.704
4.341
165.00
256.00
229.00
217.36
235.28
Hypothesis II
No statistically significant differences exist in GPA for students enrolled in the
clinical laboratory science program who experienced self-directed learning activities
compared to the GPA of students who did not experience self-directed learning activities.
The independent samples t-test was calculated to compare the GPAs at the
conclusion of one year (two semesters) for Cohort #1 and Cohort #2. Table 4.6 provides
calculation details. The one-tailed p value at 0.05 level of significance was 0.0334 with
tcv = 1.875 with 48 degrees of freedom. The calculated value did exceed the critical
value at a level of significance at 0.05; therefore the null hypothesis was rejected.
39
Table 4.6. GPA Comparisons for Cohort #1 and Cohort #2.

Parameter
Mean
Standard Deviation
Standard Error
Minimum GPA
Maximum GPA
Median GPA
Cohort #1 GPA
3.2868
25
0.5162
0.1032
2.160
4.000
3.440
3.074
3.500
Cohort #2 GPA
3.5332
25
0.4064
0.0813
2.900
4.000
3.510
3.365
3.701
Summary
This chapter presented the findings of the study that investigated the effects of
incorporating self-directed learning activities on the SDLR scores and grade point
average (GPA) of clinical laboratory science students. Fifty students from the Clinical
Laboratory Science Program participated in the study. Students completed a pretest and
post-test SDLRS that were used in the data analysis. In addition, entering GPA and
concluding GPA (after two semesters) was collected and used in the data analysis.
Hypothesis I was not rejected and Hypothesis II was rejected.
40
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND IMPLICATIONS
This chapter presents a summary of the study, including the problems, purpose, findings,
implications, and conclusions based on the analysis of the data. Limitations and
recommendations for future research are also presented.
Background
A goal of health care education is to develop curricula that promote critical
thinking skills necessary for expert performers as they develop as students and
professionally in the years after graduation. The dynamic environment in health care,
increasing body of knowledge, and complexity of practice make it vital that clinical
laboratory scientists maintain competency by continuing to learn throughout their careers.
The ability of clinical laboratory scientists to become self-directed learners is one way of
ensuring continued competence in knowledge and skills in the clinical laboratory.
Guglielmino (1977) found that a variety of attitudes, habits, knowledge, and skills are
involved in readiness for self-directed learning. The Self-Directed Learning Readiness
Survey (also known as the Learning Preference Assessment-LPA) can be used by
students and educators to assess a learners attitudes, skills, and behavior toward taking
responsibility for their own learning.
41
Summary of the Study

This study identified as its purpose to examine the self-directed learning readiness
of baccalaureate students at the beginning and at the end of one year in a clinical
laboratory science program that deliberately introduced SDL activities into the curricula.
The SDL activities included (1) a unit of study in the first semester that introduces the
concept of self-directed learning, strategies for success, and resources; (2) a self
assessment of learning style; (3) scheduled, focused meetings with a faculty advisor that
include questions regarding development of appropriate learning strategies, setting goals,
and analysis of current learning processes that may not be successful thus far for the
student; and (4) weekly formative assessment that is focused on an integrative and
cumulative approach to learning within the clinical laboratory science curriculum. The
self-directed learning readiness (SDLR) score was utilized to assess the learners
attitudes, skills, and behavior toward taking responsibility for their own learning. GPA at
the end of the year was used to determine if SDL activities was linked to academic
success in the clinical laboratory science program.
Clinical Laboratory Science students (n=50) participated in this study. Cohort #1
was the comparison group (n=25) and Cohort #2 received the treatment (n=25). Before
treatment, both cohorts were similar demographically and had similar overall grade point
averages.
Hypothesis I stated that no statistically significant differences exist in selfdirected learning readiness scores for undergraduate students transitioning from a
42
traditional academic environment into a pre-professional program of study when they are
deliberately exposed to self-directed learning activities in the clinical laboratory science
curriculum when compared to the scores of undergraduate students transitioning from a
traditional academic environment into a pre-professional program of study who have not
been exposed to self-directed learning activities.
Data were analyzed using the independent t test and findings demonstrated that
statistically significant differences did not exist between Cohort #1 post-test SDLR scores
and Cohort #2 post-test SDLRS scores after treatment.
Hypothesis II stated that no statistically significant differences exist in GPA for
students enrolled in the clinical laboratory science program who experienced self-directed
learning activities compared to the GPA of students who did not experience self-directed
learning activities. The independent t-test was calculated to compare the GPAs at the
conclusion of one year (two semesters) for Cohort #1 and Cohort #2. A statistically
significant difference did exist related to GPA for students enrolled in the clinical
laboratory science program who experienced self-directed learning activities compared to
the GPA of students who did not experience self-directed learning activities. The finding
supports the idea that students enrolled in the Clinical Laboratory Science program who
experienced self-directed learning activities have a higher GPA than those students who
did not experience self-directed learning activities.
43
Conclusions and Discussion

Findings related to Hypothesis I showed no statistically significant differences
between Cohort #1 post-test SDLR scores and Cohort #2 post-test SDLR scores after
treatment. This supports the findings of Wiley (1982) who investigated the effects of a
process-oriented, self-directed learning project and the personal preference for structure
on self-directed learning readiness among 104 undergraduate student aged 20-21 years
old. Wiley noted that SDLR scores did not increase from pretest to post-test for this
group of undergraduate students. Williams (2004) utilized the SDLRS to examine the
effect on nursing students exposed to a problem based learning program of self-directed
learning for one year. No significant findings were reported. In similar studies
examining the change in SDLR scores related to exposure to alternate self-directed
learning activities, Frisby (1991) investigated self-directed learning readiness in medical
students among two groups: the independent study students and the lecture-discussion
students. Frisby found no difference in SDLR scores among the two groups. These
findings suggest that exposure to SDL activities does not increase SDL readiness in
students. In contrast, Palumbo (1989) utilized a pretest post-test design to measure
change in SDLR scores of undergraduate nurses over time (1.5 years). There was a
significant change in the SDLR scores. Murray (1998) utilized the pretest post-test design
to determine the effect of participation of undergraduate nursing students in a clinical
internship on SDL. It was reported that the experimental group who participated in the
clinical internship differed significantly between the pretest and post-test SDLR scores.
44
The findings suggest that the construct of the SDL activities and length of exposure does
matter and that the process for developing SDL activities to enhance SDL is complex.
Hypothesis II showed a statistically significant difference did exist related to GPA
for students enrolled in the clinical laboratory science program who experienced selfdirected learning activities compared to the GPA of students who did not experience selfdirected learning activities. This supports the findings of Murray (1988) who noted
participation in SDL related activities such as a clinical internship were related to GPA.
These finding suggests that assessment and outcomes may drive the self-directed learning
process in formal education settings. Miflin (2000) reported that students base their selfstudy decision on what they expected the test to be. Schmidt (2000) noted that
assessment drives student learning in student oriented curricula to the same extent as in
conventional curricula. The gain in GPA for Cohort #2, who received the treatment of
exposure to SDL activities, is worth noting and contributes to the knowledge that selfdirected learning as an instructional method does improve student outcomes. In addition,
the weekly cumulative, formative assessments, which were part of the treatment for
Cohort #2, were developed to promote cumulative learning within the clinical laboratory
science curriculum for the fall and spring semesters may also have improved the ending
GPA for Cohort #2.
The Self-Directed Learning Readiness Survey was used to assess the learners
attitudes, skills, and behavior toward taking responsibility for their own learning. A
statistically significant difference was identified, specifically there was a drop in mean
45
SDLR score for the comparison group from 236.76 to 228.40 (8.36 points). The pretest
post-test group mean SDLR scores for Cohort #2 revealed no statistically significant
difference, but there was a slight increase for the treatment group up 5.2 points from
221.12 to 226.32. These findings suggest that exposure to the SDL activities may
prepare undergraduate clinical laboratory science students transitioning from a traditional
academic environment into a pre-professional program of study for the intense
curriculum. These types of SDL activities may prevent a loss of SDL development during
a period of transition.
As previously reported the post-test mean SDLR score for Cohort # 1 was 228.40
and the mean SDLRS score for Cohort #2 was 226.32 for undergraduate clinical
laboratory science students who have completed one year of a CLS curriculum.
Guglielmino (1977) reported a mean of 214 (SD 25.59) as the average SDLR score for
the general population. McCune, Guglielmino, and Garcia (1990) conducted a metaanalytic review of ten years of research utilizing the SDLRS on various adult learner
populations and found a mean of 227.7 (n=4,596). Shokar, et al. (2002) observed a mean
of 235.1 for a medical student population and Barnes & Morris (2000) observed a mean
of 234.77 for nursing students. According to Guglielmino, individuals with SDLR scores
in the 58-201 range are persons with below average SDLR scores who usually prefer very
structured learning options. Cohort #1 had two scores and Cohort #2 had three scores in
this category. Individuals with SDLR scores in the 202-226 range are persons with
average SDLR scores who are more likely to be successful in more independent
46
situations, but are not fully comfortable with handling the entire process of identifying
their learning needs, planning a course of action, and implementing their plan. Cohort #1
had nine scores and Cohort #2 had eight scores in this category. Individuals with SDLR
scores at or above 227 are persons with high SDLR scores who prefer to determine their
learning needs, plan a course of action, and implement their own plan for learning. This
does not mean that they will never choose to be in a structured learning situation. Cohort
#1 had fourteen scores and Cohort #2 had fourteen scores in this category. This data
concludes that over 90% of the students in Cohort #1 and Cohort #2 had average to high
SDLR scores. Knowledge of this type of individual and group data is beneficial for
planning program curricula.
Limitations
The generalizability of this study to all clinical laboratory science students should
be considered with caution based on the limitations identified in Chapter 1. The study is
comprised of clinical laboratory science students at one university. The sample is a
sample of convenience rather than random sampling. The study utilized data from a selfreport survey based on the perception of his/her readiness for self-directed learning;
therefore, accuracy depended upon the honesty of the respondents. Additionally the
threat of pretest sensitization was a minimal concern due to the nature of the survey (selfreport) and the time elapsed between the administration of the pretest and post-test (10
months).
47
Future Implications for Practice

This study was conducted to investigate if the introduction of an instructional
method, self-directed learning, into the clinical laboratory science curriculum and the
classroom would promote learner self-direction and improve learner outcomes (GPA).
The SDLRS can be used by students and educators to assess a learners attitudes, skills,
and behavior toward taking responsibility for their own learning. Most persons with
below average levels of self-directed learning readiness can increase their SDLR score
with practice of methods that promote self-directed learning (Brockett & Hiemstra,
1991). Research has suggested that individuals who have developed high self-directed
learning skills tend to perform better in jobs requiring a high degree of problem solving,
creativity, and constant change.
Characteristics of self-directed learners are individuals who take the initiative for
their learning; diagnose their learning needs; formulate learning goals; identify human
and material resources; choose and implement learning strategies; and assess learning
outcomes. Mezirow (1991) described activities fundamental to the enhancement of selfdirection in learners which included self-knowledge of personal needs such as learning
style, planning learning activities based on that self-knowledge, persistence in securing or
creating necessary learning resources, and assessing personal progress in achieving
learning goals.
The educator must be able to assess the needs of the learner and provide varied
levels of support to limit barriers and enhance development of self-direction in learning.
48
Smedley (2007) suggests the following strategies that may promote the development of
SDL skills:
1. development of supportive and trusting learning relationships between teacher
and student;
2. provision of constructive feedback from teachers and facilitators;
3. encouragement of students to self-evaluate their own performance and
identify areas of strengths and weaknesses;
4. proposal timelines strategies to improve performance;
5. use of reflection as a learning tool both in personal and professional situations;
6. encouragement of journaling and professional diary recording;
7. provision of opportunities for students to search, locate, interpret, discuss and
store quality information initially under supervision and direction moving to
independent activities; and
8. development of purposeful and goal-directed thinking (critical thinking). (p.
384)
As educators we are reminded that self-directed learning occurs along a continuum based
on the learners past experiences, the context of the learning environment, and the current
motivation of the learner.
Another consideration for educators is the opportunity to promote self-directed
learning in the hybrid classroom. The hybrid classroom of the 21st century is comprised
of a traditional face-to-face classroom interaction with an online component that provides
49
additional opportunities to introduce learning resources and exercises that facilitate

further learning experiences (Fanter, 2010). Examples of online resources are detailed
lecture notes, study guides, audio lectures files to download to personal electronic
devices, video clips, online discussions, and links to relevant internet sites all focused
on maximizing learning outcomes. The organization of the hybrid classroom encourages
the learner to accept increasing responsibility for decisions associated with the learning
process. The learner must have self-knowledge of his/her learning style to be able to
determine which of the available resources maximizes his/her learning. Brockett &
Hiemstra (1991) assert that optimal learning occurs when congruence between the
learners readiness for self-direction and the opportunity through provided resources and
planned processes are balanced.
Recommendations for Future Research

For future studies, it is recommended to consider the limitations in this study. It
would be beneficial to replicate this study in more than one student population at a single
university. This would require collaboration amongst program officials in different
laboratory science education programs and careful attention to research design and
implementation.
It would be beneficial to assess the self-directed learning readiness of practicing
clinical laboratory scientists to determine if the average SDLR score varies as students
move into the profession and gain professional experiences and participate in required
50
continuing education. This type of knowledge could be used to develop a database to

evaluate change in SDLR across the profession.
The current investigation examined SDLR scores after one year (two semesters)
of treatment. A future study may examine SDLR scores at orientation and again at
completion of the entire pre-professional curriculum in Clinical Laboratory Science (21
months or 5 semesters). Some studies have suggested that adaption to the self-directed
learning method takes time.
In an extension of the current investigation, it would be interesting to determine if
learning style (VARK) was associated with SDLR. Some studies have indicated there is
no link between SDLR and learning styles; however, no studies have been identified that
examines SDLR with VARK.
Graduates of the clinical laboratory science program are eligible to sit for the
American Society of Clinical Pathology Board of Certification Exam (ASCP BOC). A
study examining the performance of students who experienced self-directed learning
activities on theASCP BOC compared to those who did not experience the learning
activities would be beneficial to determine if such activities improve ASCP BOC
performance.
Finally, this study along with others has confirmed that the development of SDL
activities is a complex process. Further research and development is needed in this area.
51
Conclusions
This study and its analysis of self-directed learning as a teaching method and
recognition of learner self-direction as a personality characteristic of the learner has
practical applications for educators. Self-directed learning methods can be effective
teaching methods to use within and outside the classroom to enhance self-direction in
learning. If professional clinical laboratory science organizations and universities desire
practicing laboratory scientists to possess critical thinking skills, problem solving skills,
and creativity, they must implement effective educational practices that will teach and
develop these skills in students. There is evidence of using SDL in Clinical Laboratory
Science education curricula as a tool for developing critical thinking skills necessary for
expert performers as they develop as students and professionally in the years after
graduation.
52
LIST OF REFERENCES
Barnes, K. & Morris, S. (2000). A correlation between instructor ratings and nursing
student self-directed learning readiness scores. In Long HB & Associates, (Eds.)
Practice & theory in self-directed learning. Schaumburg, ILL: Motorola University
Press.
Blumberg P. (2000). Evaluating the evidence that problem-based learners are selfdirected learners: A review of the literature. In: Evensen, D. & Hmelo, C., (Eds.),
Problem-based learning: a research perspective on learning interactions. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Boshier, R. (April, 1983). Adult learning projects research: An alchemist's fantasy?
Invited address to American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec.
Box, B. J. (1983). Self-directed learning readiness of students and graduates of an
associate degree nursing program. (Doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University,
1982). Dissertations Abstracts International, 44, 679A.
Brockett, R. & Hiemstra, R. (1985). Bridging the theory-practice gap in self-directed
learning. In S. Brookfield (Ed.) Self-directed learning: From theory to practice. New
Directions for Continuing Education, Number 25. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brockett, R. & Hiemstra, R. (1991). Self-direction in adult learning: Perspectives on
theory, research, and practice. London and New York: Routledge.
Brookfield S. (1993). Self-directed learning, political clarity, and the critical practice of
adult education. Adult Education Quarterly 43, 227-42.
Candy, P. (1988). Reframing research into self-direction in adult education: A
constructivist perspective (Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 1033A.
Candy, P. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning: A comprehensive guide to theory and
practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chickering, A. (1964). Dimensions of independence. Journal of Higher Education, 35, 3841.
Clark, D. (1999). In A Time Capsule of Training and Learning. Retrieved September 15,
2009 from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/history/history.html
53
Crook, J. (1985). A validation study of a self-directed learning readiness scale, Journal of

Nursing Education, 24(7), 274-279.
Delahaye, B. & Choy, S. (2000). The Learning Preference Assessment (Self-Directed
Learning Readiness Scale). In Maltby, J., Lewis, C., & Hill, A. (2000).
Commissioned reviews of 250 psychological tests. Edwin Mellen Press, Wales, U.K.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan.
Fanter, A. (2010). Teaching And Learning Center. Retrieved February 25, 2010 from
http://courses.durhamtech.edu/tlc/www/html/Special_Feature/hybridclasses.html
Fellenz, R. A. (1985). Self-direction: A clarification of terms and causes. In Proceedings
of the 26th Annual Adult Education Research Conference (pp.164-169), Tempe, AZ.
Finestone, P. (1984). A construct validation of the Self-Directed Learning Readiness
Scale with labour education participants (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Toronto, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 5A.
Fisher, M., King, J., & Tague, G. (2001). Development of a self-directed learning
readiness scale for nursing education. Nurse Education Today, 21, 516-525.
Fleming, N. & Mills, C. (1992). Not Another Inventory, Rather a Catalyst for Reflection.
To Improve the Academy, 11, 137-155.
Frisby, A. (1991). Self-directed learning readiness in medical students at the Ohio State
University (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 52, 2896.
Garrison, D. R. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult
Education Quarterly, 48(1), 18-33.
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2006). Educational Research (8th ed.). New Jersey:
Pearson.
Gibbons, M. & Phillips, G. (1982). Self-education: The process of life-long learning.

Canadian Journal of Education, 7(4), 67-86.
Good, C. (1973). (Ed.). Dictionary of Education, Third Edition. New York: McGraw
Hill.
54
Guglielmino, L. M. (1977). Development of the self-directed learning readiness scale

(Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, 1977). Dissertations Abstracts
International, 38, 6467A.
Hendricson, W. (2006). Educational Strategies associated with development of problem
solving, critical thinking, and self-directed learning. Journal of Dental Education
70(9) 925-936.
Huynh, D., Haines, S., Stuart, D., Layson-Wolf, C., Cherokee, W., & Plaza, C. (2007).
Predictors of readiness for self-directed learning among fourth year student
pharmacists. Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy.
Retrieved March 29, 2008 from
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p196027_index.html
Jennings, S. (2007). Personal development plans and self-directed learning for healthcare
professionals: Are they evidence based? Postgraduate Medical Journal 83.
Kidd, J. (1973). How adults learn. Chicago: Association Press.
Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning. New York: Association Press.
Knox, A. (1973). Lifelong self-directed education. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse.
Lowery, C. (2003). Supporting and facilitating self-directed learning. National Teaching
and Learning Forum. Retrieved September 9, 2010 from
http://www.ntlf.com/html/lib/bib/89dig.htm
McCune, S., Guglielmino, L. & Garcia, G. (1990).Adult self-direction in learning: A
preliminary meta-analytic investigation of research using the Self-Directed Learning
Readiness Scale. In Long, H.B. & Associates, Advances in self-directed learning
research. Norman, OK: Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing Professional and
Higher Education.
Merriam, S., & Caffarella, R. (1999) Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (2nd
ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S., Caffarella, R., & Baumgartner, L. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A
comprehensive guide (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mertz, A. (2007). Federal health policy 2007: Opportunities and challenges. Medical
Laboratory Observer.
55
Mezirow, J. (1981). A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult Education,
32(1).
Miflin, B., Campbell, C., Price, D. (2000). A conceptual framework to guide the
development of self-direction, lifelong learning in problem-based medical curricula.
Medical Education, 34.
Mocker, D. & Spear, G. (1982). Lifelong learning: Formal, nonformal, informal, and
self-directed (Information Series No. 241). Columbus, Ohio: ERIC Clearinghouse for
Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, Ohio State University.
Murray, J. A. (1988). The effect of a clinical internship on the self-directed learning
readiness of baccalaureate nursing students (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Iowa, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 1036A.
Oddi, L. (1987). Perspectives on self-directed learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 38(1),
21-31.
Palumbo, D. (1989). Influence of upper division education on adult nursing students as
self-directed learners. (Doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University , Syracuse, NY).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 382A.
Pintrich, P. (1995). Understanding self-regulated learning. In P. R. Pintrich (Ed.).,
Understanding self regulated learning (pp. 3-12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rogers, C. R. (1983). Freedom to learn for the eighties. Columbus, OH: Charles E.
Merrill.
Savoie, M. (1980). Continuing education for nurses: Predictors of success in courses
requiring a degree of learner self-direction (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Toronto, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 6114A.
Schmidt, H. (2000). Assumptions underlying self-directed learning may be false. Medical
Education, 34.
Scriven, M. & Paul, R. (2004). Defining critical thinking. The Critical Thinking
Community. Retrieved September 9, 2009 from http:www.criticalthinking.org/
Shokar, G., Shokar, N., Romero, C, & Bulik, R. (2002). Self-directed learning: Looking
at outcomes with medical students. Family Medicine 34(3), 197-200.
56
Smedley, A. (2007). The self-directed learning readiness of first year bachelor of nursing
students. Journal of Research in Nursing, 12 (373).
Smith, M. K. (2003). Introduction to informal education. The Encyclopedia of Informal
Education. Retrieved September 9, 2009 from http://www.infed.org/i-intro.htm
Song, L., & Hill, J. (2007). A conceptual model for understanding self-directed learning
in online environments. Journal of Interactive Online Learning 6(1), 27-41.
Tough, A. (1978). Major learning efforts: Recent research and future dimensions. Adult
Education, 28(4).
Tough, A. (1979). The adults learning projects (2nd ed.). Austin, Texas: Learning
Concepts.
Wiley, K. (1982). Effects of a self-directed learning project and preference for structure
on the self-directed learning readiness of baccalaureate nursing students (Doctoral
dissertation, Northern Illinois University, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International,
43, 49A-50A.
Williams, B. (2004). Self-direction in a problem based learning program. Nurse
Education Today 24(4) 277-285.
57
APPENDICES
58
APPENDIX A
Self-Directed Learning Readiness Survey
59
60
61
62
APPENDIX B
Self-Directed Learning Module
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
APPENDIX C
VARK
71
The VARK Questionnnaire (Version 7.0)

How Do I Learn Best?
Choose the answer which best explains your preference and circle the letter(s) next to it.
Please circle more than one if a single answer does not match your perception.
Leave blank any question that does not apply.
1. You are helping someone who wants to go to your airport, town centre or railway station. You
would:
a. go with her.
b. tell her the directions.
c. write down the directions.
d. draw, or give her a map.
2. You are not sure whether a word should be spelled `dependent' or `dependant'. You would:
a. see the words in your mind and choose by the way they look.
b. think about how each word sounds and choose one.
c. find it in a dictionary.
d. write both words on paper and choose one.
3. You are planning a holiday for a group. You want some feedback from them about the plan.
You would:
a. describe some of the highlights.
b. use a map or website to show them the places.
c. give them a copy of the printed itinerary.
d. phone, text or email them.
4. You are going to cook something as a special treat for your family. You would:
a. cook something you know without the need for instructions.
b. ask friends for suggestions.
c. look through the cookbook for ideas from the pictures.
d. use a cookbook where you know there is a good recipe.
5. A group of tourists want to learn about the parks or wildlife reserves in your area. You would:
a. talk about, or arrange a talk for them about parks or wildlife reserves.
b. show them internet pictures, photographs or picture books.
c. take them to a park or wildlife reserve and walk with them.
d. give them a book or pamphlets about the parks or wildlife reserves.
6. You are about to purchase a digital camera or mobile phone. Other than price, what would
most influence your decision?
a. Trying or testing it.
b. Reading the details about its features.
c. It is a modern design and looks good.
d. The salesperson telling me about its features.
72

7. Remember a time when you learned how to do something new. Try to avoid choosing a
physical skill, eg. riding a bike. You learned best by:
a. watching a demonstration.
b. listening to somebody explaining it and asking questions.
c. diagrams and charts - visual clues.
d. written instructions e.g. a manual or textbook.
8. You have a problem with your knee. You would prefer that the doctor:
a. gave you a web address or something to read about it.
b. used a plastic model of a knee to show what was wrong.
c. described what was wrong.
d. showed you a diagram of what was wrong.
9. You want to learn a new program, skill or game on a computer. You would:
a. read the written instructions that came with the program.
b. talk with people who know about the program.
c. use the controls or keyboard.
d. follow the diagrams in the book that came with it.
10. I like websites that have:

a. things I can click on, shift or try.
b. interesting design and visual features.
c. interesting written descriptions, lists and explanations.
d. audio channels where I can hear music, radio programs or interviews.
11. Other than price, what would most influence your decision to buy a new non-fiction book?
a. The way it looks is appealing.
b. Quickly reading parts of it.
c. A friend talks about it and recommends it.
d. It has real-life stories, experiences and examples.
12. You are using a book, CD or website to learn how to take photos with your new digital
camera. You would like to have:
a. a chance to ask questions and talk about the camera and its features.
b. clear written instructions with lists and bullet points about what to do.
c. diagrams showing the camera and what each part does.
d. many examples of good and poor photos and how to improve them.
13. Do you prefer a teacher or a presenter who uses:

a. demonstrations, models or practical sessions.
b. question and answer, talk, group discussion, or guest speakers.
c. handouts, books, or readings.
d. diagrams, charts or graphs.
14. You have finished a competition or test and would like some feedback. You would like to have
feedback:
a. using examples from what you have done.
b. using a written description of your results.
c. from somebody who talks it through with you.
d. using graphs showing what you had achieved.
73

15. You are going to choose food at a restaurant or cafe. You would:
a. choose something that you have had there before.
b. listen to the waiter or ask friends to recommend choices.
c. choose from the descriptions in the menu.
d. look at what others are eating or look at pictures of each dish.
16. You have to make an important speech at a conference or special occasion. You would:
a. make diagrams or get graphs to help explain things.
b. write a few key words and practice saying your speech over and over.
c. write out your speech and learn from reading it over several times.
d. gather many examples and stories to make the talk real and practical.
74
The VARK Questionnaire Scoring Chart

Use the following scoring chart to find the VARK category that each of your answers corresponds
to. Circle the letters that correspond to your answers e.g. If you answered b and c for question 3,
circle V and R in the question 3 row.
Scoring Chart
Question a category b category c category d category
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Calculating your scores

Count the number of each of the VARK letters you have circled to get your score for each VARK category.
Total number of Vs circled =
Total number of As circled =
Total number of Rs circled =
Total number of Ks circled =
75
APPENDIX D
Advising Syllabus
76
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center

School of Allied Health Sciences
Mission
The TTUHSC School of Allied Health Sciences is dedicated to providing a high-quality,
student-centered learning environment for graduate and undergraduate allied health
education that seeks, through continuous quality improvement, to achieve the highest
levels of excellence in teaching, research and clinical service, while fostering the
professional and personal competence, growth and success of our students, our faculty,
and our staff.
Clinical Laboratory Science/Molecular Pathology
Advising Syllabus
ADVISING GOALS
The programs in Clinical Laboratory Science (CLS) and Molecular Pathology (MP) are
committed to:
Initiating and maintaining an open dialogue between students and faculty
(engaging)
Identifying students goals and expectations (encouraging)
Addressing students concerns and identifying problems (equipping)
Offering advice for improvement and success (empowering)
The programs are dedicated to student success in the Health Sciences Center
environment, preceptorship sites, and beyond. Academic advising is a collaborative
process and ultimately you, the student, are responsible for your educational
experiences.
EXPECTATIONS OF STUDENTS
The programs in Clinical Laboratory Science and Molecular Pathology and your advisor
expect you to:
Schedule appointments and/or contacts during each semester
Come to appointments on time and prepared
Accept responsibility for your decisions and actions
Be open to developing and clarifying your personal values and goals
EXPECTATIONS OF ADVISORS
You can expect your advisor to:
Know the CLS and MP degree requirements
77
Provide a safe environment for sharing concerns

Refer you to quality resources
Listen carefully to your questions, concerns, and points of confusion
Maintain confidentiality
Encourage and support you as you gain the skills and knowledge necessary for
success
RESOURCES: www.ttuhsc.edu, www.advising.ttu.edu
78
ADVISING CALENDAR
Year One Fall Semester (CLS & MP)
Orientation
Complete VARK Questionnaire

Self-directed Learning Readiness Survey
Meet your advisor group
Schedule initial advisement
October Mid-term
Schedule advisement for assessment of progress
Throughout Semester
Schedule appointments with advisor as needed to

monitor progress
Year One Spring Semester (CLS & MP)

February (CLS)
Mid-term
Throughout Semester

monitor progress
Year One Summer Semester (CLS & MP)

June Mid-term (CLS)
Schedule advisement for assessment of progress for

at risk students
June Practice Comprehensive Exam (MP)
Assessment of progress
Year Two Fall Semester (CLS)

October Mid-term
Throughout Semester

monitor progress
Year Two Spring Semester (CLS)

March Practice Comprehensive Exam
Assessment of progress in preceptorship
May
Final assessment
79
Fall Initial Advisement: Student Name

CLS
MP
PREREQUISITES
Student has completed VARK
APPOINTMENT OUTLINE
Getting to know you:
1.
How did you get to the CLS or MP program?
2.
Are you a first generation college student?
3.
How many hours a week are you planning to work this semester?
Discuss role of academic advisor:

1.
2.
3.
Advisor as guide
Providing resources
Offering suggestions and strategies
Complete the following questions:

1.
My long term education goal(s) is/are...
2.
My support system is
3.
I anticipate these challenges
4.
The difference between studying and learning is
Strategies for Success:

1.
VARK Learning Style
2.
Class attendance and punctuality
3.
Prepare for class
4.
Use a day, week, monthly planner
5.
Purchase required course materials
GOAL:
Select a fellow student (one you do not know) who is a member of your advisement group and
learn three facts about that person. Email your advisor the name of the fellow student and the
three facts by
(date).
Student Signature
Faculty Advisor
80
Fall October Midterm Advisement: Student Name

CLS
MP
PREREQUISITES
Student has completed several rounds of integrative exams
APPOINTMENT OUTLINE
Assessment of Performance:
Share midterm grades for each course with student (attach to form)
1.
What are your impressions of the curriculum?
2.
Do you feel prepared for the curriculum?
3.
Is your performance meeting your expectations (discuss each course)?
4.
Have you met with instructors in course(s) you are having difficulty?
Advisor Comments:
Faculty Advisor
Student Signature
81
Spring February Advisement: Student Name

CLS
MP
PREREQUISITES
Student has completed one round of integrative exams
APPOINTMENT OUTLINE
Curriculum:
1.
Have you purchased all the required texts and required course materials?
2.
What learning strategies did you implement in the fall semester that will help
you in the spring semester?
3.
Do you have any concerns for this semester?
MP ONLY
4.
Are you making appropriate progress in your self-directed research project?
Advisor Comments:
Student Signature
Faculty Advisor______________
82
Spring Midterm Advisement: Student Name

CLS
MP
PREREQUISITES
Student has completed several rounds of integrative exams
APPOINTMENT OUTLINE
1. Is your performance meeting your expectations (discuss each course)?
2. How are you using the required texts and course materials?
3. How are you preparing for the integrative exams?
Strategies for Success:

4. Have you met with instructors in course(s) you are having difficulty?
Advisor Comments:
.
Faculty Advisor
Student Signature
83
Summer Midterm Advisement: Student Name

CLS
MP
PREREQUISITES
Student has completed several rounds of integrative exams and is at risk for failure in
a component
APPOINTMENT OUTLINE
1.
Is your performance meeting your expectations (discuss each course)?
2.
Have you met with instructors in course(s) you are having difficulty?
MP ONLY
3.
Are you making appropriate progress in your self-directed research project?
Advisor Comments:
Student Signature
Faculty Advisor
84
APPENDIX E
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center Institutional Review Board Approval
85
86
APPENDIX F
Consent to Participate
87
88
89

Rice Spearman Dissertation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rice Spearman Dissertation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING READINESS IN CLINICAL LABORATORY

Lori Rice-Spearman, August, 2010

Lori Rice-Spearman, August, 2010

Lori Rice-Spearman, August, 2010

Lori Rice-Spearman, August, 2010

Garrisons Three Dimensional Model .................................................16

Lori Rice-Spearman, August, 2010

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

Lori Rice-Spearman, August, 2010

Lori Rice-Spearman, August, 2010

Lori Rice-Spearman, August, 2010

There is evidence of using SDL in Clinical Laboratory Science education

Lori Rice-Spearman, August, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lori Rice-Spearman, August, 2010

Lori Rice-Spearman, August, 2010

Lori Rice-Spearman, August, 2010

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

Lori Rice-Spearman, August, 2010

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

Lori Rice-Spearman, August, 2010

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

Lori Rice-Spearman, August, 2010

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

Purpose of the Study

Lori Rice-Spearman, August, 2010

2. a self assessment of learning style;

The SDLR score and

Lori Rice-Spearman, August, 2010

An individuals readiness for self-directed learning can be determined

Participants will respond truthfully on the questionnaire.

Lori Rice-Spearman, August, 2010

The sample was comprised of clinical laboratory science students at one

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

Lori Rice-Spearman, August, 2010

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

Lori Rice-Spearman, August, 2010

Lori Rice-Spearman, August, 2010

Conceptual Framework for Understanding Self-direction in Learning

Lori Rice-Spearman, August, 2010

Lori Rice-Spearman, August, 2010

Lori Rice-Spearman, August, 2010

Candys Learner Control Continuum

Lori Rice-Spearman, August, 2010

Figure 1. Candys Learner Control Continuum

Personal Responsibility Orientation Model

Lori Rice-Spearman, August, 2010

Figure 2. Personal Responsibility Orientation Model

Lori Rice-Spearman, August, 2010

Garrisons Three Dimensional Model

Lori Rice-Spearman, August, 2010

Table 2.1. Perspectives on Self-directed Learning

Social Context: role

Self-directed Learning in Health Professions Education

Lori Rice-Spearman, August, 2010

Lori Rice-Spearman, August, 2010

Lori Rice-Spearman, August, 2010

Lori Rice-Spearman, August, 2010