An instructional development framework for developing 21st Century skills in the University

My colleague, Diane Crosley, an instructor in Natural Sciences at Spring Arbor University, and I gave a presentation at the Lilly Conference on College and University Teaching and Learning in Traverse City, MI last October (2015) entitled, "Bridging the skills gap: Preparing Higher Education students for the 21st century workplace."

It has been a while since our presentation, and I am currently working on a follow up presentation for the International Lilly Conference in June (Helping student to create knowledge networks for current and future success).  My presentation in June is the outcome of discussions we had in our October session.  So I thought it might be the right time to share what some of the highlights/discussion questions were for our October presentation.

This presentation came out of the discussion Diane and I had about teaching, the needs of our students, and conversations we had with our colleagues on how to teach these skills.  We both come from different disciplines (she was a high school science teacher and currently teaches at the college level most natural sciences including biology, environmental science, geology, and botany; I did training in the workplace before teaching business, communication, global studies, foreign language, and education at the college level).  However, we discovered the same gap between high school students and employer expectations.  The planning framework came out of the universals we identified in giving students the skills expected from employers, students, policy makers, educators, and society in general.

The Presentation: 

Abstract:  Many experts the workplace have identified a lack of skills by new college graduates needed for the 21^st century workplace.  These skills include self-regulated learning, communication, networking, critical thinking, analysis (data, numeric, and content) and problem solving.  This presentation will present a framework that can be used to create and analyze activities that will develop these soft skills.  The framework, based on a variety of learning theories and subjects (Social Sciences, Humanities, Business, and STEM), includes identifying student soft skills, identifying the instructor’s role (and changes needed by the instructor),  and situational learning strategies to meet the student/workplace gap.

Many experts in industry and the workplace have identified a lack of skills by new college graduates needed for the 21^st century workplace.  These skills include written and oral communication (Bersin, Agarwal, Pelster, and Schwartz, 2015; Chronicle of Higher Education, 2015; Hart Research Associates, 2015; Weiner, 2014); lifelong learning skills (Bersin et al, Chronicle of Higher Education 2015); creating knowledge networks (Hart Research Associates; Weiner), problem solving and analytical skills (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2012; Hart Research Associations, Hilborn and Friedlander, 2013); Rhetorical reasoning and critical reading (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2015); applying theory to practice (Hart Research Associates; Hilborn and Friedlander;  Weiner); community building and engagement (Bersin et al.); and mathematical reasoning (Hilborn and Friedlander).

                

These skills can be further broken down into the following skill sets: self-regulated learning, communication, networking, critical thinking, analysis (data, numeric, and content) and problem solving.  While the common core curriculum was designed to address this gap between the academic and workplace skill development, the implementation of K-12 curriculum has focused on assessment and standardized teaching rather than development of the of workplace “soft-skills”. This presentation will present a framework that can be used to create and analyze activities that will develop these soft skills.  The framework, based on analysis of activities using a variety of learning theories and subjects (Social Sciences, Humanities, Business, and STEM), includes identifying student soft skills, identifying the instructor’s role (and changes needed by the instructor),  and situational learning strategies to meet the student/workplace gap.

References: 

Bersin, J., Agarwal, D., Pelster, B., Schwartz, J. (2015). Global Human Capital Trends 2015: Leading in the new world of work.  Deloitte University Press: DUPress.com

Chronicle of Higher Education (2015). Special Report: The Employment Mismatch.  Chronicle.com, May 22.

Chronicle of Higher Education (2012). The Role of Higher Education in Career Development: Employer Perceptions.  Retrieved May, 2015 from https://chronicle.com/items/biz/pdf/Employers%20Survey.pdf

Hart Research Associates (2015).  Optimistic About the Future, But How Well Prepared? College Students’ Views on College Learning and Career Success.  Prepared for the Association of American Colleges and Universities, April 29, 2015. Retrieved May 22, 2015 from http://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/2015StudentSurveyReport.pdf 

Hilborn, R. & Friedlander, M.  (2013) Biology and Physics Competencies for Pre-Health and Other Life Sciences Students.  CBE Life Science Education, 12 (2), 170-174.

Weiner, J. (2014) The STEM paradoxes: Graduates’ lack of non-technical skills, and not enough women. Washington Post (online edition), September 26.

The presentation format was as followed: 

1)      Introduction to topic

2)      What is the perceived lack of necessary skills coming into college? Participants will Brainstorm by content areas (e.g. STEM, humanities, social sciences, business, professional)

3)      What does the research say is lacking with regards to skills coming into college?

·         Basic math usage issues,

·         communication issues,

·         group dynamic issues,

·         ability to problem solve in new situations (critical thinking)

·         adaptability and teachability

4)      What are the perceived deficits of college graduates entering the workforce from the perspective of business and industry?         

5)      A discussion of the disconnect between educational expectations (K-12 to college) and workplace skill set needs (college to the workplace expectations): the workplace/education skill gap (i.e. self-regulated learning, communication, networking, critical thinking, analysis, and problem solving.)

A.      How do we change our classrooms to help facilitate student learning? What is the role of the professor?  How does that role need to change? Research says that the role of the instructor needs to change to one of mentoring  student learning rather than presenting content to the student.  How many instructors feel uncomfortable with this idea of a changing role?  Why?

B.      Strategies instructors can use in their content area to help build these missing skills (a demonstration of two different activities used in two different contexts that build “soft skills”).  Both activities will model the need for students to be faced with real world open ended problem solving.  However, both activities will be grounded in two different educational theories (experiential learning and project based learning).

C.      Interdisciplinary group activity in which participants brainstorm existing teaching strategies and how to adapt them to maximize practice of the missing skill sets.

D.      Framework to create activities that will develop the skills university students need in the workplace.  The frame work consists of planning, execution, and feedback phases (Appendix A).

Summary: This presentation presented a framework that can be used to develop student skill sets, identify activities that will will develop those skill sets, and a record for instructors to document their teaching and its impact on student employability and community engagement.

Dissertation: Analysis of the Impact of the Environment on the Group

In order to understand the interaction between the distributed group, individual group members, and the organization and its departments within this study, it is important to understand the various working environments and perceived power structures.

There were numerous environments that an individual might have to work with as a member of the project under study. In addition, there were multiple layers of authority and vested interests (share-holders) that influenced individual members and the group itself at any given time.

From an ethnomethological stand point, this group influenced and was influenced by the complex environment that a distributed group creates. Distributed groups create multi-layered power structures, multiple cultures which workers need to traverse, and intricate social relationships, both internal and external to the group. These complexities are both created through the new power structures, work processes, and cultures that are established when bringing together group members from various departments and locations. However, distributed groups also create complexity for the departments and organizations where they are located as group members try to align goals, work processes, priorities, and even the image of the group and departments where they work. As a result, a distributed group may be working within a much more dynamic environment than that of a single department within a common location.

In looking at this group, some conclusions about the impact of this more complex environment on the group could be drawn:

• There were differing interpretations of perceived authority within the group, the departments, the project, and the organization especially when there was no clear authority structure imposed on the group.

• According to the group, there was very little perceived cultural change within departments and the professions that group members identified with. However, the group’s culture appeared to fluctuate to align with the perceived power structure’s culture. Some group members were able to adapt; but for others, they either left the organization or tried to change the culture within the perceived power structure to meet their own comfort level. This was dependent upon their perception of their own empowerment and importance within the group, their department, and the training and home organizations.

• The greater percentage of the group member’s time that was dedicated to the project, the greater perception that they had a vested interest in the project and its outcome. This also lead to those with a vested interest feeling more entitled to contribute to the project, which then lead to them having a greater role with in the group’s power structure. In other words, those that did not have additional duties outside of the project, believed that they should have the greatest influence on the project direction and decisions.

• The complexity of the environment made it difficult for group members and the management team to determine who exactly was part of the group (intragroup identification) and what an individual member’s role was within the group. Related to the previous point, those with the greater percentage of time dedicated to the project were closely identified with the Healthcare Counseling group. However, other factors such as acceptance by the group members, recognition by the management team and departmental power structure, and perceived expertise within an area the group and individual members identified as important also had an impact on whether others within the group recognized someone as a member or not. Those that individual members recognized as being part of the group, were included in project work processes and communications. Although, not everyone recognized by individual members was recognized by the group as a whole as being part of the group.

• The power structures, both internal and external to the group, were dynamic and not static. As a result, there was continuous realignment of goals, work processes, perceptions and expectations to maintain balance both within and outside the group. This sometimes required changes in the group culture, channels of communication, project formats and tools, and management (power) structures.

• The writing projects were both informed by and influenced communication, work processes group identity and member roles, and project goals and standards. The formats, physical layout, and virtual tools created both physical and psychological boundaries within which the group functioned. At times, these boundaries had to be renegotiated, either intragroup or between external power structures (stakeholders, departments, management). There were four strategies that were used: 1) accept a boundary (process, expectations, format, standard, etc…) as it was imposed on the group without any changes or comment, 2) adopt a process or format from one of the departments as is or making minimal changes to align with the group’s beliefs and processes, 3) maintain multiple processes or formats as long as they could be compatible with boundaries imposed externally, modifying those that were outside of the imposed boundaries, or 4) create new formats and processes from scratch to fit within the boundaries imposed externally. The strategy used depended on time constraints, the degree of perceived difference outside of the group, the level of ownership both to the project and the work task/product, the support (or lack) by the group members and/or power structure, the affect on personal, professional, or departmental image, and level of personal investment to certain aspects of the project.

• Related to this was the consistent tension between work processes established at the various levels of the power structures within the work environment. These tensions were often resolved either by 1) collaboration, 2) compromise, 3) subversion, or 4) withdrawal from the organization or project.

Work at learning; learning at work

Michelle Martin is hosting the work/learning carnival this month with the topic of work at learning; learning at work. In it, Michelle asked us to write about keeping motivated to learn in the work place.

Perhaps because "learning" is my work, and the group I have been studying is also in the "learning" business, I don't see that there is a problem with workers being motivated to learn. Perhaps the problem is more identifying and measuring worker learning.

With very few exceptions, workers are learning every day as their situation changes. There is continually new technology, new policies, new problems, new co-workers, new clients and customers, that a worker faces and needs to adapt to. The problem is that companies want their workers to learn new discreet information that may not apply (at that time or ever) to those situations that face workers every day.

I feel there needs to be a better way of preparing workers for learning and better measures for the informal learning workers do as they adapt to new situations.

For example, when I worked as a market researcher for the natural gas industry, I picked up a lot of information not only about how the pipelines were connected and which companies used natural gas and those that did not, I also learned a lot about the "politics" of the energy industry. Even now, as I hear about the price of oil, the price of gas, the effect of hurricanes on the energy industry, there are also a deeper understanding of the relationship between consumers, suppliers, developers, refiners, and transporters (pipelines, ships, trucks, etc...).

This understanding of the politics, however, was not recognized until I left the job and those in charge suddenly became concerned that I was leaving and taking this information with me, something that could not be contained in the computer or even passed on to other workers. The problem, as I see it, was the bosses were measuring my learning using performance data (# of phone calls made, # of completed questionnaires). They did not recognize that the conversations I had with interviewees were learning moments for me, developing my understanding of the industry (which I had no knowledge of before starting the job).

So this is what I would suggest we start looking at (and asking workers to document) to assess their learning:

• New understanding of the industry in which they work
• Prediction of where their work will be in the next quarter
• Summary of resources (personal, written, electronic) they they use during a given time period
• New skills or techniques they learned during the quarter
• New contacts they made during the quarter
• Suggestion of the areas they would like to learn more about and why

Not only does this make sense in terms of knowledge, it also makes sense in management. Once workers are recognized for the learning they have accomplished, they will be more motivated to take some time out of their schedule to learn more, thus creating a learning cycle.

The problem is to convince management to reward this type of learning and to have workers take the time out to document their (informal) learning.

New Skills for Knowledge Workers

On the work literacy blog, Tony Karrer posted a framework, that I was not really satisfied with. I thought it was too simplistic, too "cookbook" like with a follow the checklist type mentality. Tony agreed, but pointed out that he really hadn't come across anything better. So I tried to come up with a "better" framework.

I'm not sure I acheived better as much as different or something that is closer to what I see are the new skills needed for knowledge workers. Some of this is based on work that I have been doing in distance learning over the last 4 years. One paper in particular which I gave at AERA in 2006 (you can find a copy on my website) is the basis for the cognitive, social, and social-cognitive skills. This came out of work I did with Dr. Hae-Doek Song in which we looked at cognition and social aspects of a distance learning course. As we developed the codes we would use for cognition and social, I felt there was a third dimension: socio-cognition.

4 Categories of Skills

Looking at the mind map I developed, you will see I have 4 categories of skills: cognitive, social, socio-cognitive, and performance. I have a note in each of the category with gives a brief description of what I think are these skills. In the case of the last skill, I think there is a type of skill, which fits more into the traditional idea of "learning" and still has a place in today's workplace.

For lack of any other term, I called it the performance skill as it is the skill that is developed and is the basis for most "performance" evaluations. These skills can easily be tested and often are learned through repetition on the job. Each individual will develop their own heuristic to accomplish these skills, but they will be evaluated on the performance rather than the "heuristic".

Framework is more Complex

While this framework, I think is more complex than the one presented by Tony, I also think it allows for less defined skills, and more types of skills. I have put in specific skills that I think will fall into each category, however, these skills (and the categories) might change given the job, organization, or even technology over time.

This is also my first attempt. I think there can be more definition to the model in terms of the interaction between the skills (for example, what happens if the organization stresses performance skills, customers social skills, from a worker that is more comfortable with cognitive skills--such as happens with help-desk personnel?). Can this framework be used to identify types of organizations, knowledge work, personalities, or tasks? Can we then over lap these skills with technology attributes or affordances to develop an even more complex model that helps to match skills with technology or skills with affordances or outcomes?

Feedback

I used a collaborative mindmapping tool (wisemapping) to develop this mindmap. If anyone would like contribute to it, let me know and I will give you access to it. I tried to include skills we have been discussing on the workliteracy blog. There are others I have been reading lately, which I might add or might allow to give me another dimension to the map.

Developing "mind velco"

Related to comments Ken Allen and Tony Karrer made on my blog, I began to think about the mind of the adult and the "basis" on which adults learn (the "mind velcro" on which we can build on).

The first two phases of Learning

I was recently watching a TV show about teenagers (living with two, I need all the help I can get!) and they presented some information on some of the research that has been coming out of brain scans. There are basically two times in a person's life when there is great growth and change in the brain: around 3-7 years old and at puberty. It has been an accepted fact that early childhood is a time when the brain develops exponentially as language skills especially are developed. However, new research shows that at puberty, old connections that have not been used (experiences that are not reinforced, information used only once) the brain culls to make way for new learning. As the brain changes during puberty, some areas such as reasoning finally growing, teenagers can learn just as much as in young childhood.

This brings me to something Ken pointed out. If young children don't have the ability yet to reason, then it is possible that they learn the motions of reasoning, but not the abstract concepts. As a result, what they have really learned in not in abstract form. That does not happen until the reasoning portion of the brain develops.

When I think back on my school days, I remember the mechanical processes (how they were taught, instructions from teachers and my parents) learned in Kindergarten to 3nd grade. These were rules for reading, multiplication tables, spelling words. I don't remember anything but the mechanics. Middle school is a blur and I can't recall any of my experiences in school (except for the social angst associated with being a middle school student). When I think of what I learned in high school, I think of much more abstract ideas (rhetoric, subtle differences in vocabulary, scientific method).

However, certain concepts are still stronger from my elementary years (the laws of addition) without the understanding of the abstract ideas (algebra). For example, it was not until I had to work with my children that the laws of addition made sense from a conceptual level. While I am sure we went over the concepts in algebra, I maintained the simplistic understanding from grade school as it was not necessary for me to truly understand the math behind it. I mastered the functions of arithmetic so a deeper understanding of the math behind it was not necessary.

What Does This Mean for Adult Learners?

Language teachers know that the hardest skills to change are those that were learned incorrectly originally and "fossilized" at a young age. With the new research on puberty, I would also suspect that those that were reinforced during puberty (again without critical thought, the meaning may be fossilized in a distorted manner) are especially difficult to change. Perhaps this is why some people still hold on to the "lessons" they learned from high school and refuse to change (such as what is the "correct way" to write, communication tools, etc...).

Over the next few weeks I will be exploring some of these issues while I work on my dissertation. One thing I have noticed already is that adults become entrenched in their learning, holding on to the "truths" they learned at a young age. It is important to 1) change fossilized skills that are built on a lower level of learning, 2) create experiences that require adults to look at the assumptions (velcro) that is the basis for their learning, and 3) push adults to recognize there may be gaps in their understanding (not what they learned but how they came to make meaning of the content) that may require a new adult perspective at fundamental skills (such as knowledge, writing, analysis, arithmetic, communication). The last two are tricky, because by making them look at basic skills, many perceive this at too "elementary" or that we, as trainers/educators are underestimating their intelligence.

What are we doing as teachers to make ourselves literate in the workplace?

In a recent comment I posted to Ken Allen, I mentioned that we as teachers have the advantage over our students in that we have the opportunity to create deeper understanding for ourselves by trying to explain concepts and negotiate meaning with our students. To do this however, we need to have interaction with our students.

However, how many instructional designers and trainers are given the opportunity to really discuss a topic indepth with their target audience? How many even have an understanding of the environment in which their students work?

At the conference I attended on Distance Learning last week, one of the presenters spoke of being "blown away" at some of the feedback she had asked for. One of the students felt that her formating requirement for the subject line was in fact making things more difficult for him to follow rather than easier. He was doing the entire course using his blackberry so the e-mail options made him difficult to follow which threads went with which discussions. What surprised her was that he was using a common technology in a different way. Had she not asked for feedback, she would not have been able to make accommodations for his situation.

As a result of these questions, I think we need to be careful as develop work literacies that:

1. We recognize that these are not stagnant, nor will specific work literacy skills fit all contexts
2. Workers might have or not have these skills without being aware of it
3. There is a cultural underpinning with all literacies that might be difficult, yet necessary to identify
4. Instructional designers and teachers may or may not be aware of the contexts in which their target audience is using, but must ask the right questions to determine student needs and skills

I feel that we should be looking more systematically at the organizations and understand the cultures and epistemologies first. From there, we can begin to identify the various work literacies needed to succeed in the modern workplace. These then can be put into a framework (as Tony has sketched out, but perhaps with broader categories). The framework can then be used to develop different assessment tools, technology, and instructional designs based on the culture and organizational/individual epistemologies. That should only take another 20 years to accomplish!

University vs. Workplace

Today I participated in a conference for the Capital District Educational Technology Group (CDETG). We are a group educational technologists in Northeastern, NY mostly at the university level. The conference, about distance learning, started with the following list of trends in online education followed by a discussion by a panel of policy level educational technologist:

The June 9^th edition of ELearning Magazine published what it thought were the trends in online education.

TREND #1 Traditional Learning Management Systems Are Toast

l There will be more learning than ever, but there will not be a centralized LMS. Learning will move to being department, even course-driven, with content being user-created: From LMS to VLE to PLE...

TREND #2 Content Becomes Democratized

l Learning content will be created by users. The content will not be controllable as it is today because there will be significantly more places where learning content will be published.

TREND #3 Thin Slices of Content Will Be Consumed

l Instead of “complete courses”, content will get sliced into smaller, bite sized chunks that will be created rapidly.

TREND #4 Content Authoring Tools Will Change

l Tools will be available that will help users to create thin-sliced content that will become peer and value rated.

TREND #5 Gaming and Simulation Emerges

l Gaming and simulation are somewhat new in learning, but they are very powerful and will continue to gain momentum.

TREND #6 Self-Service Learning Becomes the Norm

l Students will increasing define not only their own courses but programs.

TREND #7 Finding Courses Will Be More Important Than Creating Courses

l Since there will be an explosion of community- developed courseware, campuses will focus on organizing a taxonomy to help users find learning content. Librarians may become more important than the instructional designers. A new job title will emerge: Social Network Manager, the coach of how to create courseware.

What I found interesting was the trends that many thought were not true for the University level. This was trend #6 and #2. This points out the difference between workplace and higher education. Trend #6 would be difficult to institute in a higher education environment because of accreditation requirements. I doubt that trend #2 would be acceptable in either the university or workplace due to the amount of control this would require administrators to give up.

What I thought was interesting was that many felt that there would always be a place for a LMS. However, I feel that the role of the LMS will change over time from a go- to-place for all to an administration system that is the starting point for learning. In other words, I foresee learning management systems as becoming learning tool aggregates that will help keep track of where students and student groups keep their things. This is especially important for the university level, where panelist pointed out that they needed a central place to help student support.

Making the transition from university to the workplace

I recently had an exchange with Dave Ferguson about a previous blog posting.

I wrote:

Perhaps I am unique in that I try to bridge the university and the
workplace.  I have taught in both the workplace and university, working in
business communication, international business, ESL, and business
communication.  I actually get upset at the line that business schools
make towards workplace learning (how can you discount years of experience
valuable learning) as well as the growing demarcation I find corporate
trainers are making between "school" knowledge and workplace learning.

One of my interests in the last 4 years (as I pursue a Ph.D. in Education,
because the program would let me focus on workplace learning with writing
and technology in an international context, something the Management
Schools would not allow) has been how best to prepare my students
(especially undergraduate) for future workplace learning.  What skills do
corporate trainers assume graduates have coming into the workforce?  What
type of learning will employees be expected to do in their career?  This
will help me to better prepare my students for the future.  I keep reading
the literature that says that businesses complain their students are not
prepared for the workplace, but no specifics.  How are we supposed to
better prepare them if we don't know what the businesses expect?

On the other hand, I think that businesses have a real disconnect in their
understanding of the next generation of employees.  There are many things
they can learn from this generation and I feel that learning professionals
in the workplace need to start preparing for a new type of worker.  After
18 years of teaching at the university level, I see a number of trends
that have effected my students learning.  This will begin to penetrate the
workforce at a lag behind the universities.  But I don't see businesses
coming to the universities and asking what is happening with their
students (it is easier to say the universities are not preparing the
students correctly).

For example, over the last two years, I have noticed the effect that NCLB
has had on our students.  These students (future workers in the next 5
years) are very "trainable".  Give them a check list or a list of things
to learn and they will do it.  However, many do not take the initiative in
terms of their own learning.  One of my students, an educator at a
health-related university coined this type of learning as just in time
learning.  Students won't learn something until they need it, and then
they want access to it immediately.  I foresee this as an issue for
workplace educators in the future.

I would like to hear from others on both sides of the school/work transition.

1. What skills do businesses assume students have? What would you like them to have?
2. What are the difficulties new employees have in transitioning to the workplace?
3. What skills do new graduates have that are different from 10 years ago? How can these skills be used to help an organization?
4. What type of training do you think new graduates will need when they first enter the workforce?
   

The difference between teaching at the University and teaching in the workplace.

Ken Allen posted a question about the differences I saw between workplace training and teaching in the university in response to one of my posts on Is there (should there be) a difference between workplace learning and "academic" learning?In addition to the factors Ken mentioned (time for study), I think there is a broader cultural difference. Past generations (and even now) have been educated to believe that once schooling is ended, we will not have need for learning outside of specialized programs that will help with our jobs. As a result, most workplace learners will ask the question, "how will this help me in my current job." One of my students (an instructional designer) pegged this as "just in time learning".

At the university level, I can tell my students that they might not have immediate use for something I am teaching (such as learning how to learn for business or communication majors), but it is a skill they will need for the future. In the workplace, my students would not put up with this.

Finally, I feel that there are many outside pressures that affect workplace learning (families, bills, work) that forces learners to turn off their brains once they step out the door of the classrooms (or training rooms). I know for myself that when I am in school full time, there is a culture that allows for discussion of ideas at a higher level outside of class. These discussions do not take place in the workplace or at home outside of training/classes. As a result, I cannot rely on my students in a workplace to "get" something between classes that require higher order thinking. Instead, I need to bring them through the higher order thinking while I have them and then let them apply it to their own context once they leave.

With University students, on the other hand, I will work through the process (thus creating the experience), then challenge them to use their higher order thinking while out of class (through blogging, reflective papers, and projects) to figure out what went on. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that a 19 or 20 year old is thinking about the impact of new communication technologies on an organization unless they are forced to. However, when they are asked to articulate their thoughts, they at least have others they can bounce ideas off of outside of class. They also HAVE the time (whether they use it or not is something else) to think about ideas (as opposed to thinking about who is picking the baby up from daycare, can I mow the lawn tonight, is there gas in the car, do I have enough money to buy a house).