Colin Milligan Rosa Pia Fontana Allison Littlejohn Anoush

Colin Milligan, Rosa Pia Fontana, Allison Littlejohn, Anoush Margaryan Self-regulated learning in the financial services industry Paper session: Motivation and Self-Regulation at Work Date: Thursday 28 th August 2014, Time: 09: 00 - 11: 00 Session Number: 3 C

Outline • • Professional Learning and Self-Regulated Learning, Study context, participants and method, Findings, Reflection on implications, limitations and future work.

Introduction and background Knowledge intensive industry Self-regulated learning Professional learning Finance industry Forethought Performance Self-reflection

Professional Learning Knowledge intensive industries, Knowledge creation, new knowledge, Organisation focused approaches less effective, Learning is intertwined with work, Shift in responsibility to the individual. Knowledge intensive industry Self-regulated learning Professional learning • • • Finance industry Forethought Performance Self-reflection

Self-Regulated Learning Knowledge intensive industry Self-regulated learning Professional learning Self-regulation is the ‘self-generated thoughts, feelings and actions that are planned and cyclically adapted to the attainment of personal goals’ - Zimmerman, 2000. FORETHOUGHT SELFREFLECTION Finance industry Forethought Performance PERFORMANCE Self-reflection

Phases and sub-processes of SRL Forethought Goal setting Strategic planning Self-efficacy Task interest/value Performance Task strategies Elaboration Critical Thinking Help seeking Interest enhancement Knowledge intensive industry Self-regulated learning Professional learning Phase Sub-processes Self-reflection Self-evaluation Self-satisfaction/affect Zimmerman, 2000 Finance industry Forethought Performance Self-reflection

SRL and Professional Learning Knowledge intensive industry Self-regulated learning Professional learning • Work-related learning is inherently goal-driven, synthesis in Sitzmann & Ely (2011) • The ability to self-regulate critical when learner is responsible for identifying and creating learning opportunities, Enos, Kehrhahn, & Bell, (2003) • SRL processes are linked to successful workplace learning, Schulz & Stamov Roßnagel (2010) • Teacher learning often unplanned, reflective Finance not industry van Eekelen, Boshuizen, & Vermunt (2005) Forethought • SRL processes not delineated into discrete phases Performance Margaryan, Littlejohn, & Milligan (2013) Self-reflection

Research Questions and Study Design

Research Questions • How do professionals plan, implement, and reflect on their learning goals in the context of everyday work at the boundaries of knowledge? • How do individuals draw upon others (the collective) in self-regulating their learning? • How do professionals use technology to support their self-regulated learning? • What are the similarities and differences in: • use of SRL strategies, • strategies of drawing on others. between professionals who score high and those who score low on self-regulated learning measures?

Context • Knowledge workers in the finance industry, • Recruited via professional body: Chartered Institute for Securities and Investment (CISI) providing professional development and qualifications for the finance industry. • Largely, though not wholly UK based.

Cohort Recruited via CISI member list: • • • Finance professionals actively engaged with CPD. 170 completed survey respondents, 30 interviewees [21 m, 9 f], 15 organisations. 14 senior managers, 9 supervisors, 7 frontline staff. Average age: 50. 87

Instrument: SRL Questionnaire • A measure of SRL for each respondent. Items were tailored to encourage participants to reflect specifically on their learning practices in the workplace. • Adapted from existing instruments: • MSLQ (Pintrich et al, 1991); MAI (Schraw & Dennison, 1994); OSLQ (Barnard-Brak et al, 2010); LS (Warr & Downing, 2000); OS (Rigotti, Schyns & Mohr, 2008). • Instrument available from figshare: http: //dx. doi. org/10. 6084/m 9. figshare. 1146236 • Validation study accepted for publication in IJTD, v 19.

High and Low Self-regulators Cohort split into two groups (k-means cluster analysis): High SRL: Low SRL: n=18 [12 m, 6 f] n=12 [9 m, 3 f] Average age; 51. 83 Average age: 49. 92 Average SRL score: 173. 56 Average SRL score: 133. 58 • No statistically significant difference in age, gender, role, or years spent in current organisation. • High SRL group scored significantly higher for measure of Workplace Learning Activity, echoing Gijbels, Raemdonck, Vervecken & van Herck (2012) - findings reported in a paper that is currently under review.

Instrument: Semi-structured interview • Explored various aspects of workplace learning, structured around SRL sub-processes including self-motivation, selfefficacy, goal-setting and planning strategies, as well as patterns of help-seeking, and reflection. • Available from figshare: http: //dx. doi. org/10. 6084/m 9. fig share. 1146247

Findings

Findings: motivation Learning itself Make a good impression Career Progression Part of the job/ necessity Total High SRL 3 (17%) 1 (6%) 11 (61%) 18 Low SRL 1 (8%) 9 (75%) 12 “…For me personally it felt like a good opportunity to do something different and have the opportunity to develop different skills and move on and just a change of role I thought would be a good thing and beneficial for me” High-SRL (N 13) “So I would deliver a piece of work that I was proud of rather than, you know I didn’t want to just tick the box and move it off my desk, I wanted to take some pride in it” High-SRL (N 3) “I wanted to know enough to talk with colleagues without looking a fool” Low-SRL (N 19)

Findings: planning Detailed planning Ongoing planning No planning Reactive planning Total High SRL 7 (39%) 8 (44%) 2 (11%) 1 (6%) 18 Low SRL 3 (25%) 6 (50%) 2 (17%) 1 (8%) 12 “I planned it both in terms of what pieces of knowledge did I need to acquire? Where might I acquire them? And who might be able to help me to acquire them? And then I planned that into my diary to on the one hand give myself research time. So I blocked out periods of diary where that would be the only thing I’d be doing and then similarly to book in meetings with the individuals I had identified who would be able to help me, so that I knew I would have formal points in time at which I was actually doing that research activity” High-SRL (N 3) “We jumped in to be honest because we were confronted with situations which we needed to and we tried to work out how best to deal with these particular situations” Low-SRL (N 30)

Findings: help-seeking Team/Line Manager Colleagues/ staff in other offices/ organisations Others (friends, families, customers etc. ) Total (instances) High SRL 8 (24%) 22 (65%) 4 (12%) 34 Low SRL 10 (45%) 9 (28%) 3 (14%) 22 “Yeah there’s a number of people across the same organisation that I interacted with, that are not peers or reports or managers, but people that I knew were subject matter experts that I might have linked in with for advice. ” High-SRL (N 13) “Yes, I suppose for that particular transaction we were…it was pretty much my boss and myself that was involved, I was kind of leading the transaction and he was sort of ducking in and getting his fingerprints on it from time to time, but myself and my boss, there was internal people from the relationship team who were involved, we had to interact with other areas of the bank because there more hedging or derivative products were getting put in place”. Low-SRL (N 24)

Findings: gaps? • Little evidence of differences in learning strategies used • Little evidence of reflection at all despite asking specific questions about both formal and informal reflection.

Findings: self-reflection “I do find that I take most of my learning from a period of reflection … I will launch into it once I’m enthused and motivated and engaged … I’m learning on a daily basis, which is incremental … I seem to get an awful lot of learning from reflecting on the previous 3 months or 6 months about what’s happened practically or what’s changed or how we’re now doing it compared to what we did do. So I use reflection quite a lot. ” High-SRL (N 10) “It depends on the situation. Do I reflect every single day on what I’ve learnt? The answer is no. Do I reflect in certain situations more than others? The answer to that is yes” [then when prompted to be specific] … “things where something has been a challenge or has been difficult, that you think oh that’s really tested me and I’ve needed to think about that, so yes I’ve learnt something new there, which is where I would do more reflection”. Low-SRL (N 28)

Conclusions and Reflection

Conclusions • High SRL learners seem to have a broader outlook. Echoes Schulz & Stamov Roßnagel (2010) who described a ‘positive learning orientation, that is, an interest in expanding one’s knowledge skills and abilities appears to be an important constituent of learning competence’. • Differences in specificity and quality of goals, strategies reported. • The presence of a discrete planning phase. (cf Margaryan et al, 2013; van Eekelen et al, 2005) • Greater responsibility – less external regulation. • Look harder to find evidence of other SRL behaviours. Or are they absent?

Reflection: Implications Think about the bigger picture. • Organisations should recognise the importance of giving their workers space and opportunity to develop • Individuals can be encouraged to reflect on their learning, developing greater awareness of their learning needs and strengths and weaknesses.

Reflection: Limitations • Small sample, limited access, • inherent in workplace learning research. • Limited range of SRL ability, • all participants were self-regulating their learning to a significant degree. Broad variability within sample. • No opportunity to follow through cycles of SRL, • Difficult to recognise that ‘learning’ has occurred.

Reflection: Future Work • Combine with quantitative approaches, • to strengthen evidence. • Study different knowledge intensive work contexts, • to see if our observations are generalisable. • Research specific work contexts, • to enable better access to research cohorts. • Perform longitudinal studies, • allows us to see cycles of self-regulation, focus on specific learning events. • Interview peers as pairs, groups, etc. • retain our focus on individual learning behaviour (c. f. team learning).

Thank you Colin Milligan Caledonian Academy GLASGOW CALEDONIAN UNIVERSITY Glasgow, SCOTLAND colin. milligan@gcu. ac. uk @cdmilligan Study Team § Rosa Pia Fontana § Allison Littlejohn § Anoush Margaryan Thanks to: § Chartered Institute for Securities & Investment Slides available from: http: //figshare. com/authors/Colin_Milligan/100462 [http: //dx. doi. org/10. 6084/m 9. figshare. 1153673]

Extras

Fontana, R. P. , Milligan, C. , Littlejohn, A. , & Margaryan, A. (2015, to appear) Measuring self-regulated learning in the workplace International Journal of Training and Development 19 (1) In knowledge intensive industries, the workplace has become a key locus of learning. To perform effectively, knowledge workers must be able to take responsibility for their own developmental needs, and in particular, to self-regulate their learning. This paper describes the construction and validation of an instrument (the Self-Regulated Learning at Work Questionnaire: SRLWQ) designed to provide a measure of self-regulated learning behaviour in the workplace. The instrument has been validated through a pilot study with a cohort of knowledge workers from the finance industry (n=170). Results indicate that the five scales of the instrument are reliable and valid, testing a broad range of sub-processes of self-regulated learning. The instrument can be used to identify knowledge workers who demonstrate different levels of self-regulated learning in workplace contexts for further exploration through qualitative studies and could also provide the basis of professional development tools designed to explore opportunities for self-regulation of learning in the workplace.

Milligan, C. , Fontana, R. P. , Littlejohn, A. , & Margaryan, A. (under review) Self-regulated learning behaviour in the finance industry As work practices in knowledge intensive domains become more complex, individual workers must take greater responsibility for their ongoing learning and development. This study seeks to explore the role of self-regulatory behaviours in predicting workplace learning. The study was conducted with knowledge workers from the finance industry. 170 participants across a range of work roles completed a questionnaire consisting of three scales derived from validated instruments (measuring learning opportunities, self-regulated learning, and learning undertaken). The relationship between the variables was tested through linear regression analysis. Data analysis confirms a relationship between the learning opportunities provided by a role, and learning undertaken. Regression analysis identifies three key SRL behaviours that appear to mediate this relationship: task interest/value, task strategies, and self-evaluation. Together they provide an insight into the learning processes that occur during intentional informal learning. This quantitative study identifies a relationship between specific self-regulated learning behaviours and workplace learning undertaken in one sector. Qualitative studies are needed to understand the precise nature of this relationship. Follow up studies could explore whether the findings are generalizable to other contexts. Developing a deeper understanding of how individuals manage their day to day learning can help shape the learning and development support provided to individual knowledge workers. Few studies have explored the role of self-regulation in the workplace. This study adds to our understanding of this critical element of professional learning.

References van den Boom, G. , Paas, F. , van Merrienboer, J. & van Gog, T. (2004). Reflection prompts and tutor feedback in a web based learning environment: effects on students self-regulated learning competence. Computers in Human Behavior, 20 (4), 551 -567. van Eekelen, I. M. , Boshuizen, H. P. A. , & Vermunt, J. D. (2005). Self-regulation in higher education teacher learning. Higher Education, 50 (3) 447 -471. Enos, M. D. , Kehrhahn, M. T. , & Bell, A. (2003) Informal learning and the transfer of learning: how managers develop proficiency. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14 (4), 369 -387. Fuller, A. , & Unwin, L. (2004). Expansive learning environments. Integrating organizational and personal development. In H. Rainbird, A. Fuller & A. Munro (Eds. ), Workplace learning in context (pp. 126 -144). London: Routledge. Gijbels, D. , Raemdonck, I. , Vervecken, D. , & van Herck, J. , (2012). Understanding work-related learning: the case of ICT workers. Journal of Workplace Learning, 24(6), 416– 429. Margaryan, A. , Littlejohn, A. , & Milligan, C. (2013). Self-regulated learning in the workplace: learning goal attainment strategies and factors. International Journal of Training and Development, 17 (4) 254 -259. Schulz, M. , & Stamov Roßnagel, C. (2010). Informal workplace learning: an exploration of age differences in learning competence. Learning and Instruction, 20 (5), 383– 399. Sitzmann, T. & Ely K. (2011). A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-related training and educational attainment: what we know and where we need to go. Psychological Bulletin, 137(3), 421 -442. Warr, P. , & Downing, J. (2000). Learning strategies, learning anxiety and knowledge acquisition. British Journal of Psychology, 91 (3), 311 – 333. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, M. Zeidner, & P. R. Pintrich (Eds. ), Handbook of self-regulation (pp 13 -39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Further Reading Instrument Construction Barnard-Brak, L. , Lan, W. Y. , & Paton, V. O. (2011). Measuring and profiling self-regulated learning in the online learning environment. In G. Dettori & D. Persico (Eds. ), Fostering self-regulated learning through ICT (pp 27 -38). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Crouse, P. , Doyle, W. , & Young, J. D. (2011). Workplace learning strategies, barriers, facilitators and outcomes: a qualitative study among human resource management practitioners. Human Resource Development International, 14 (1), 39– 55. Pintrich, P. R. , Smith, D. , Garcia, T. , & Mc. Keachie, W. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning Rigotti, T. , Schyns, B. , & Mohr, G. (2008). A Short Version of the Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale: Structural and Construct Validity Across Five Countries. Journal of Career Assessment, 16 (2), 238– 255 Schraw, G. & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19 (4), 460 -475. Background Reading Collin, K. (2004). The role of experience in work and learning among design engineers. International Journal of Training and Development, 8 (2), 111 -127. Collin, K. (2008). Developments engineers’ work and learning as shared practice. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 27 (4), 379397. Eraut, M. (2004). Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Education, 26 (2), 247 -73. Eraut M. (2007). Learning from other people in the workplace. Oxford Review of Education, 33 (4), 403 -422. Hager, P. (2004). The conceptualisation and measurement of learning at work. In H. Rainbird, A. Fuller, & A. Munro (Eds. ), Workplace Learning in Context (pp 242 -258). London: Routledge. Littlejohn, A. & Margaryan, A. (2013) Technology-enhanced professional learning: mapping out a new domain. In A. Littlejohn, & A. Margaryan (Eds. ), Technology-enhanced professional learning: Processes, practices and tools (pp 1 -13). London, Routledge. Tynjälä, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational Research Review, 3(2), 130– 154.