The Learning Contract – Student Course Management Tool
Dr. Michael J. Stacey and Professor Robert M. Halliday

For many years we had mixed results as we taught in several different colleges and universities using the tried and true methods of lectures, tests and papers. In some cases the students tried to please us and produce a good product (papers) or a good grade (on tests). Yet we didn’t see much real learning on their part either in class or in their life outside of school. We also did not see much transference between courses. We did see students who appeared to be bored with the topics and not personally motivated by course content. We realized that there had to be a better way to teach the required material so they could use it either in the class itself or applications outside of class. The learning contract was created to help students discover their interests in the course, offer increasing self-directed responsibility and provide them with a dynamic tool to manage their own work.

The learning contract is a formal project management tool utilized within the class framework. Within the structure of the learning contract the student or group constructs a goal or goals related to the course goals, defining each goal into meaningful specific objectives (small results that need to be achieved).

Student(s) develop action plans to achieve each goal, detailing concrete activities that must be completed and the resources required to achieve these goals. Specific monitoring methods are proposed, along with a method for evaluating final product(s), performance and quality as well as personal/professional growth.

Each goal must have both theoretical underpinnings and a practical product as the outcome. Through the learning contract processes, higher level cognitive skills are expected to be utilized (Bloom, 1956). Students are invited to rigorously apply the theoretical materials they are learning in real world contexts, both inside and outside of the classroom. For instance, students used both Dewey’s learning through experience and Gardner’s multiple intelligences on one project to design learning stations for third graders to learn the state standards for subjects more effectively than through drill and skill memorization. Students’ motivation and performance increased as they completed their contract successfully.

There are several different formats for learning contracts. For instance, McGarrell (1996) suggests that the faculty/student answer four questions: a) What will the learner learn?; b) How will the learner accomplish an identified short-term objective?; c) When does the learner expect to achieve a given objective?; d) How will the learner demonstrate what he/she has learned and how will the learner’s demonstration of achievement be evaluated and by whom? (p.497-498)

Knowles developed an approach that uses steps rather than questions: 1) diagnosis of learning needs; 2) specification of learning outcomes; 3) identification of resources and strategies; 4) presentation of evidence of accomplishments; 5) specification of how evidence will be evaluated; 6) seeking advice of colleagues and or experts; 7) completing the terms of the contract; and finally; 8) evaluating the learning experience. (Confessore and Grovell, p.19)

In our approach there are eight components to the learning contract (constructed by the individual or team). First, identify the problem that needs to be solved or the opportunity that needs to be developed. We believe that the student should be working on something that is meaningful to him/her yet also meets solid academic standards.

The second step asks the student to select a general topic area related to the problem or opportunity that they want to research. A student with the initial difficulty of focusing on a project, decided to study and use lesson plan principles in developing an outline for building boats.

Thirdly, once the topic is determined, the student sets a specific goal for the course. The goal in this case was to review eight lesson plan principles and use them in developing a lesson plan outline as well as a proposal that the principal might approve. The goal must be formatted in a way so that there is a deliverable product at the end of the course, i.e., an actual lesson plan and proposal were the products in this case.

Fourth, the student needs to identify resources that will help develop the previously identified product. Those sources are either content sources such as journals, research studies, or experts in the field. The student must have a number of content sources and at least one expert that will review their product for quality and comprehensiveness. The student in this situation reviewed articles on lesson plan learning principles and spoke to an expert about how to develop a proposal.
Fifth, the student reviews those sources in writing and generates insights about the product and/or how to create the product. In this case, the student was amazed at how many steps there were to developing a good proposal.

Sixth, once all of the above have been identified, the student develops a concrete action plan to accomplish his/her goal the requisite deliverable. The plan consists of activities to do and associated dates for completion. The student in our continuing example here set targets for when he would collect the articles and would meet with the expert, as well as presenting his proposal to the principal.

Seventh, the second to the last step is to implement the action plan. In our illustration, the student met with the principal and received permission to create the lesson plan and hold a class on boat building. When reporting on his/her contract work, the student describes specifically the actual product and what was learned while doing it. The student evaluates the specific successes achieved and failures encountered doing the product. Feedback from the technical expert is solicited and discussed in detail regarding the product’s quality and comprehensiveness.

Eighth, the last step is called “Next Steps.” Students plan in detail how they will continue the professional gains made during the course. This is both a short-term—six week and long term—two-year plan. In our continuing illustration, the plan was to continue developing the lesson plan and then implement it during the next two years. The student’s final products, the lesson plan and proposal, were placed in the appendices at the end of the contract report.

Postscript: I received an e-mail with an attachment from this student a couple of years after the course ended. The attachment showed two beautiful boats that his students had built as a result of the learning he achieved utilizing the learning contract.

Research studies have produced similar quantitative and qualitative results. For instance, quantitative research studies have been conducted using the contract technology. Ray (1996) found that students using a contract increased their test scores by an average of 17.3 percentage points. Another researcher (Chiang, 1998) found that 76% of her students became more conscientious of their learning. These are implications that this tool enhances learning in the classroom.

In our work we have conducted qualitative research with the associated anecdotal evidence. Some of those comments are listed below:

• This contract proved useful in my achieving my goals because it narrowed my focus and forced me to be specific.
• The learning contract is something I will use again.
• This was an outstanding learning tool.
• The learning contract was a very good paper/ assignment.
• The learning contract was “outstanding.”

Authors:
Dr. Stacey has over twenty years of teaching experience as an adjunct at Lesley University, University of Bridgeport and other learning institutions. He is currently working with Dr. Slater in Prof Ed’s Organizational Research Assessment Center comparing regional centers statistics against the Learning Contract model format to see if there is a significant difference in ratings along several dimensions.

Professor Halliday is currently an Assistant Professor of Management at Quinnipiac University in Hamden, Connecticut. His research interests include managerial learning, team development, interpersonal competence and organization development. Professor Halliday is the faculty administrator of the Star Team Consultant Program.

References
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives – book 1 cognitive domain, New York: Longman, Bloom and Krathwohl.

Confessore, S. J., & Grovell, S. C. (1994). Implementing technology in the higher education classroom: using self-directed learning and learning contracts. In: Jack A. Chambers (Ed.). Selected Papers from the National Conference on College Teaching and Learning. Jacksonville, Fla.: National Conference on College Teaching and Learning.

Chiang, L. (1998, October). Enhancing metacognitive skills through learning contracts. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

McGarrell, M. H. (1996), Self-directed learning contracts to individualize language learning in the classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 29, p. 495-508.

Ray, D. R. (1996), Teaching the low-performance college student: an inexpensive behavioral technology that works. Educational Technology, 36, 52-64.